I-NRLF 


B   H   bit,   fil? 


REESE    LIBRARY 

OF   THK 

UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA. 

Received  ..         .(^^OW^tSS 
Accessions  No.  <^J>  __<_'_£__.       Shelf  No. .: 


COMMENTAEY 


ON   THE 


BOOK     OF     DANIEL, 


BY 


MOSES   STUART, 


LATELY   PROP.  OF   SACRED   LITERATURE    IN  THE   THEOL.  SEMINARY 
AT  ANDOVEB. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED    BY    CROCKER   &    BREWSTER 

1850. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1850,  by 

CROCKER  &  BREWSTER, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 

</ 


7 


ANDOVER:  JOHN  D.  FLAGG, 

9TEREOTYPER    AND    PRINTER. 


PREFACE. 


WHILE  engaged  in  wilting  my  Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse, 
I  found  myself  so  often  remitted  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  for  the  sake 
of  illustration,  that  I  of  necessity  was  obliged  to  study  that  book 
with  more  than  ordinary  care  and  diligence.  It  was  natural  for 
me,  in  the  course  of  an  often  repeated  study  of  the  book,  to  contract 
a  fondness  for  it,  or  at  least  to  take  a  deep  interest  in  it.  When  I 
had  completed  my  apocalyptic  labors,  and  acquitted  myself  of  some 
engagements  which  followed  them,  I  began  the  study  of  Daniel 
aneWj  and  with  a  view  to  the  writing  of  a  Commentary  on  it.  The 
labor  was  severe  ;  for  very  much  has  been  written  upon  the  book, 
a  considerable  portion  of  which  has  much  more  of  chaff  than  of 
wheat  in  it.  Just  as  I  had  completed  the  exegetical  part  of  my 
work,  a  typhoid  fever  took  strong  hold  upon  me,  and  brought  me 
near  to  the  grave.  For  two  years  and  six  months  it  was  utterly 
beyond  my  power  to  write  another  paragraph.  Toward  the  close 
of  January  last,  I  began  slowly  to  mend,  and  after  a  while  I  ven 
tured  to  resume  my  labor.  But  for  several  weeks  subsequent  to 
this,  I  could  not  venture  beyond  the  effort  of  studying  an  hour  in 
a  day.  The  opening  Spring  brought  some  further  relief ;  and  thus 
I  have  been  able  to  complete  my  original  design. 

In  this  personal  history  the  public,  I  am  aware,  can  take  but 
little  interest.  But  it  has  so  often  been  published,  in  one  way  and 


PREFACE. 


another,  that  I  was  about  to  print  a  Commentary  on  the  book  in 
question,  that  I  have  deemed  it  not  inapposite  to  state  the  ground 
of  my  delay. 

As  to  the  book  of  Daniel  itself,  I  believe  that  no  other  of  the 
scriptural  books,  the  Apocalypse  excepted,  has  called  forth  such  a 
variety  of  discrepant  opinions  and  interpretations.  How  can  I 
agree  with  all  of  them  ?  And  yet  the  great  mass  of  readers  are 
ready  to  say,  each  one  for  himself,  that  I  ought  to  agree  with  him. 
But  why  ?  my  friend.  You  take  the  liberty  to  differ  from  others  ; 
and  why  should  you  refuse  the  same  liberty  to  me  ?  Besides,  I 
v  have  to  ask  :  On  what  grounds  have  you  based  your  opinion  ? 
Have  you  studied  the  book  in  its  original  languages  ;  sought  for 
light  on  evSry  side,  from  history,  and  from  antiquities  ;  and  above 
all,  have  you  thoroughly  and  simply  applied  to  it,  irrespective  of  any 
favorite  and  preconceived  notions  about  it,  the  established  principles 
of  historico-grammatical  exegesis  ?  And  do  you  even  know,  with 
any  certainty,  what  those  principles  are  ?  If  not,  how  much  is 
your  opinion  worth,  even  in  your  own  eyes,  when  you  look  candidly 
at  such  a  difficult  matter  as  the  interpretation  of  the  book  before 
us? 

If  here  and  there  a  self-complacent  critic  of  my  Commentary  on 
the  Apocalypse,  had  asked  himself  such  questions,  before  he  sat 
down  to  write  his  diatribe,  the  public  would  have  been  spared  a 
deal  of  a  priori  interpretation  and  spider-web  theories.  Some  had 
written  their  book,  on  the  same  work  of  John,  and  mine  disagreed 
with  it.  Hinc  illae  lacrymae.  Some  had  read  that  profound  work 
of  Bishop  Newton  on  the  Prophecies  ;  and  because  I  did  not  agree 
with  him,  I  must  be  in  the  wrong.  The  most  confident  of  my  con 
demning  judges  were,  of  course,  those  who  could  not  read  a  word 
of  the  original,  and  would  not  "be  able  to  form  any  idea  what  one 
means,  who  talks  about  historico-grammatical  interpretation.  I 
0  have  no  defence  to  make  against  any  such  assailants. 

What  happened  then,  may  and  probably  will  happen  now.     I 
have  not  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  Daniel  has  said,  or  knew,  any 


PREFACE. 


thing  about  the  Pope  and  his  Cardinals.  This  will  be  enough  to 
pass  sentence  of  condemnation.  Do  manus.  I  can^  have  no  dis 
pute  with  criticism  like  this.  Of  all  the  books  in  the  Bible,  except 
perhaps  the  Apocalypse,  Daniel  has  been  least  understood,  and 
most  perverted  and  abused.  I  will  bide  my  time,  and  wait  with 
patience  to  see,  whether  this  will  be  conceded  and  myself  justified 
in  the  attempt  to  vindicate  its  true  meaning. 

For  the  rest,  I  have  only  a  few  things  to  say,  as  to  the  design 
and  manner  of  the  Commentary.  I  have  kept  in  my  eye,  every 
where,  the  wants  of  a  beginner  in  the  study  of  Hebrew,  and  spe 
cially  of  the  Chaldee.  For  the  Chaldee  part,  the  book  is,  as  I  trust, 
a  complete  Chrestomathy r,  i.  e.  it  gives  the  solution  of  every  diffi 
culty  respecting  the  forms  and  the  syntax  of  words.  The  reader 
may  depend  on  its  being  a  sufficient  introduction  to  the  grammati 
cal  study  of  the  Chaldee  language.  The  references  everywhere 
made  in  copious  abundance  to  Prof.  Hackett's  translation  of  Wi 
ner's  Chaldee  Grammar,  will  familiarize  him,  if  he  is  faithful  in 
consulting  that  Grammar,  with  all  the  forms  and  peculiarities  of  the 
Chaldee  dialect.  All  the  Chaldee  words  are  of  course  comprised 
in  Gesenius'  Hebrew  Lexicon. 

The  few  in  our  country,  who  are  acquainted  with  the  Chaldee, 
will  take  no  offence  at  a  brief  space  being  occupied  with  the  solution 
of  grammatical  questions.  They  can  pass  on  and  leave  these, 
without  any  hinderance.  If  they  once  have  studied  the  language, 
and  let  slip  the  memory  of  grammatical  minutiae,  they  will  thank 
me  for  rendering  it  quite  easy  for  them  tq>  recal  what  they  had 
lost. 

Most  heartily  do  I  commend  it  to  all  Hebrew  students,  to  go  on 
and  study  the  Chaldee.  If  they  are  well  grounded  in  Hebrew, 
four  or  five  weeks  spent  faithfully  on  the  Chaldee,  will  enable  them 
to  read  this  with  as  much  facility  as  they  do  the  Hebrew.  The 
study  of  the  Chaldee  in  Daniel,  will  be  sufficient  to  enable  them  to 
read  the  Chaldee  in  Ezra  with  entire  ease  ;  and  from  him  they  may 
go  into  the  Chaldee  Targums  without  any  difficulty.  The  conquest 


V  PREFACE. 

is  easy,  and  ought  to  be  achieved  by  every  valiant  soldier  of  the 
cross. 

Should  the  present  volume  prepare  the  way  for  a  more  extensive 
study  of  one  of  the  sacred  languages  in  our  country,  by  young 
candidates  for  the  ministry,  the  writer  of  it  will  not  have  labored 
in  vain. 

M.  STUART. 

ANDOVBR,  MAY  24, 1850. 


CONTENTS 

OF  SUBJECTS  SPECIALLY  DISCUSSED. 


COMMENTARY. 
Excursus. 

Page. 

Chronological  errors 19 

Alleged  error  in  respect  to  dates          .  .....       82 

The  Chaldees 34 

Nebuchadnezzar's  golden  image 74 

The  names  of  musical  instruments 82 

The  demeanor  of  the  three  martyrs  in  the  furnace  ...      88 

Nebuchadnezzar's  proclamation 96 

The  Watchers  and  the  Holy  Ones 103 

Great  Babylon  built  by  Nebuchadnezzar 114 

Various  alleged  incongruities  in  chap,  iv 119 

Alleged  incongruities  in  chap,  v 141 

Alleged  incongruities  in  chap.  vi.  .  .  .  .  •  •  .170 
The  four  great  empires  in  chap.  vii.  seq.  .  .  .  .  .  .173 

The  fourth  beast .205 

The  punishment  of  the  fourth  beast 213 

Time,  and  times,  and  the  dividing  of  time 223 

The  2300  evening-mornings 238 

Various  modes  in  which  the  four  dynasties  are  described  .  .  .249 
The  fasting  of  Daniel,  and  the  nature  of  the  seventy  weeks  .  .  251 
The  seven  weeks  and  sixty-two  weeks  of  9:  25  .  .  .  .273 

The  winged-fowl  of  abominations  in  9:  27 297 

The  various  modes  of  interpreting  9:  24—27  .....  303 
Conspectus  of  the  Hebrew  in  9:  24- -27,  and  five  translations  .  .  309 

The  guardian  angels  of  nations  324 

The  general  resurrection  as  developed  in  12:  2  .        .        .        •     360 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

CRITICAL  HISTORY  AND  DEFENCE. 

§  1.  Personal  history  of  Daniel 3  73 

§  2.  Nature  and  Design  of  the  Book 381 

§  3.  Style  and  aesthetical  Character 392 

§  4.  Language  and  Idiom 395 

§  5.  Unity  of  the  Book  or  sameness  of  Authorship       .        .        .398 

§  6.  Genuineness  and  Authenticity 400 

§  7.  Objections  against  the  Genuineness,  etc 459 

§  8.  Ancient  Versions  of  the  Book  of  Daniel       ....  489 

§  9.  Apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel 493 

§  10.  Leading  Commentaries  and  critical  Disquisitions          .        .  494 


COMMENTARY 


[CHAP.  i.  Early  history  of  Daniel.  Siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  capture  of  Jehoiakim,  and  deportation  of  a  part  of  the  vessels  of  the 
temple  to  Babylon  ;  vs.  1  ,  2.  Daniel  with  some  of  his  companions  is  se 
lected  by  the  king's  overseer  to  be  trained  up  in  the  Chaldee  manner,  for 
the  personal  service  of  the  king  ;  Babylonish  names  are  given  to  the  young 
Hebrews,  and  they  are  supported  from  the  king's  table,  vs.  3  —  7  ;  Daniel 
makes  earnest  request  that  he  and  his  companions  may  have  liberty  to  adopt 
a  simple  vegetable  diet,  so  that  they  may  not  defile  themselves  with  the 
royal  viands  ;  he  obtains  liberty,  and  thrives  remarkably  well  under  his  new 
regimen;  vs.  8  —  16.  All  four  of  the  Hebrew  children  make  unusual  pro 
gress  in  knowledge  ;  but  Daniel  is  endowed  by  God  with  uncommon  sagacity 
and  knowledge,  and  becomes  able  to  interpret  visions  and  dreams  ;  v.  17. 
At  the  end  of  three  years,  Daniel  and  his  companions  are  brought  before  the 
king,  and  they  are  found  to  be  far  more  intelligent  and  sagacious  than  any 
of  the  Chaldean  astrologers;  vs.  18  —  20.  The  21st  verse  contains  an  indi 
cation  of  Daniel's  long  continuance  at  court,  even  until  the  restoration  of 
the  Hebrews  to  Palestine,  during  the  first  year  of  Cyrus's  reign.  In  other 
words,  Daniel,  in  person,  was  a  witness  to  the  beginning  and  end  of  the 
Jewish  exile.] 

CHAP.  I.  1.  In  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah,  came 
Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  to  Jerusalem,  and  besieged  it. 


aisa  ,  lit.  in  the  year  of  three.  This  is  the  usual  method  of  ex 
pressing  time  in  this  book  ;  see  1:  21.  2:  1.  7:  1  (Chald.).  8:  1.  9:  1.  So 
frequently  elsewhere;  e.  g.  2  K.  12:  2.  13:  1.  15:  1.  al.  The  Hebrew 
usually  empldys  cardinal  numbers  (1  —  10)  for  ordinals,  when  years  or 
days  are  reckoned,  Roed.  Heb.  Gramm.  §  118,  4.  e.g.  the  construct  form 
of  the  noun  designating  year,  etc.  (as  in  the  case  before  us),  is  often  em 
ployed;  comp.  Gramm.  §  118,  4.  —  nwbTab  ,  of  the  reign,  the  Gen.  in 
such  a  case  being  ordinarily  marked  by  prefixing  b  ,  when  it  is  preceded 
by  numerals  ;  Roed.  Gramm.  §  113.  2.  c.  —  rriini  ,  first  the  name  of 
Jacob's  oldest  son,  and  (after  the  exile)  employed  also  for  the  name  of  the 
1 


CHAP.  I.  2. 

Jewish  country  ;  as  it  is  here.  —  xs  came.  Hengstenberg  (Authent. 
Dan.  p.  61)  translates  it  zog,  i.  e.  proceeded,  or  set  out,  viz.  upon  an  expe 
dition.  But  the  sequel  (and  besieged  it)  shows,  that  the  usual  sense  of 
X3  (==  lipgofiat)  must  here  be  attached  to  the  word  ;  and  so  I  have  ren 
dered  it  in  the  version  above  —  The  name  "isxinasDji  is  probably  com 
posed  of  in?  =  Mercury,  who  was  worshipped  by  the  Babylonians, 
^!Jo*  (chodan)  =  deus,  and  ito  =  prince,  i.  e.  the  name  means 
prince  of  the  god  Nebo,  or  Mercury,  i.  e.  belonging  to  him,  and  so  of  high 
rank.  —  "1:^1  (either  Imperf.  Hiph.  of  .the  root  ^ns  ,  or  the  Imperf.  Kal 
of  isix ,  the  Pattah  of  the  final  syllable  being  adopted  because  of  the 
final  i,  Roed.  Gr.  §  22.  2.  a  and  5.  Moreover,  a  shortened  Imperf. 
and  a  retracted  accent  are  normal  here,  Gramm.*  §  48.  b.,  2.  b.  The  b? 
(with  SufF.  it  becomes  ^br)  lit.  means  against ;  but  here  it  qualifies  the 
preceding  verb,  and  the  construction  resembles  Isa.  7:  1,  rrbs  crlbri . 
V»  is  usually  found  after  this  verb  in  the  sense  of  besieging ;  Lex.  -fix 
No.  2.  (the  more  probable  stem.) 

(2)  And  the  Lord  gave  into  his  hand  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah  and  a  part  of  the 
vessels  of  the  house  of  *God,  and  he  brought  them  to  the  land  of  Shinar,  to  the  house 
of  his  god,  and  the  vessels  he  carried  to  the  treasure  house  of  his  god. 

1T)3 ,  into  or  in  Ms  hand,  very  frequently  employed  by  the  Hebrews 
to  designate  the  idea  of  putting  in  one's  power  or  at  his  disposal.  As  to 
the  fact  of  the  invasion  itself,  comp.  2  K.  24:  1.  —  FXpa  ,  «  part  of, 
(nsp  is  an  abridged  form  of  nxsp  =  nxsp  ,  from  nsj?)  .  It  is  disputed 
whether  a  is  a  prefix-formative  here  or  a  preposition.  I  regard  it  as  being 
the  latter,  i.  e.  as  derived  from  -p  ,  the  Daghesh  which  we  should  expect 
in  the  p  being  omitted,  because  it  would  make  the  Sheva  vocal  under  this 
letter  in  case  of  its  insertion  ;  Gr.  §  20.  3.  b.  This  usage  of  omitting 
Daghesh  in  such  cases,  is  not  unfrequent.  Comp.  the  same  word,  although 
with  a  sense  somewhat  diverse,  in  Dan.  1: 15, 18.  Here  the  form  is  the 
same,  and  a  is  unquestionably  a  preposition  in  both  these  cases.  So  in 
Neh.  7:  70,  comp.  Ps.  135:  7.  In  2  Chron.  36:  7,  the  same  idea  as  here  is 
expressed  simply  by  ibsa  ,  a  part  of  the  vessels,  instead  of  i^3  nspp  as 
in  our  text.  But  the  passage  in  2  Chron.,  I  cannot  well  doubt,  describes 
the  second  invasion  of  Palestine  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  at  the  close  of  Je- 
hoiakim's  reign,  when  this  king  was  put  in  chains  to  be  carried  to  Babylon, 
and  probably  died  in  this  condition,  Jer.  22:  18,  19.  36:  30.  Still  the 
occasion  and  the  transaction  are  of  the  like  nature  with  those  which  per- 

*  This  abridged  mode  of  citation  always  applies  to  my  edition  of  Eoediger's  He 
brew  Grammar. 


CHAP.  I.  2.  3 

tain  to  the  first  invasion.  At  the  first  invasion,  Nebuchadnezzar,  who 
made  Jehoiakim  the  Jewish  king  tributary  to  him,  rifled  the  temple  of 
only  a  part  of  its  treasures  ;  at  the  second,  he  took  away  another  portion 
of  them,  2  Chron.  36:  7.  At  the  third,  he  repeated  the  same  thing  on  a 
more  extensive  scale,  2  K.  24:  13.  At  the  fourth  and  final  invasion  un 
der  Zedekiah,  when  the  temple  was  destroyed,  all  its  treasures  were  car 
ried  away,  together  with  king  Zedekiah,  his  family,  and  his  court,  2  K. 
25:  6 — 20.  A  part  of  these  treasures  were  brought  back  under  Cyrus, 
Ezra  1:  7  ;  and  the  rest  under  Darius,  Ezra  6:  5. 

0x1271  and  he  brought  them  —  who  ?  where  ?  The  vessels  and  Jehoia 
kim,  (for  the  verb  of  itself  with  its  suffix  might  easily  have  this  meaning), 
or  only  the  vessels  ?  The  latter  only,  as  the  sequel  shows ;  for  surely  he 
did  not  bring  Jehoiakim  and  put  him  in  the  treasure-house  of  his  god. 
As  the  actual  coming  of  Jehoiakim  to  Babylon  is  not  here  mentioned,  it 
is  probable  that  he  died  on  the  way,  after  he  was  taken  captive  and  bound 
in  fetters,  2  Chron.  36:  6  ;  see  and  comp.  Jer.  22:  18,  19.  36:  30.  - 
Land  of  Shinar  is  the  old  name  for  the  province  of  Babylon ;  see  in  Gen. 
10: 10.  11:  2.  Isa.  11: 11.  Zech.  5: 11,  the  last  two  cases  seem  to  be  a 
kind  of  poetic  use.  The  origin  of  the  name  has  not  yet  been  developed. 
—  And  the  same  vessels  did  he  bring  to  the  house  of  his  god,  is  a  literal 
rendering  of  the  last  part  of  the  verse.  As  to  the  version  above,  we  may 
render  the  second  sonri  by  deposited,  (Sept.  anr^i6(txo,  safely  conveyed 
or  carried),  which  will  preserve  the  sense,  and  avoid  a  seeming  tau 
tology  in  case  we  here  render  it  brought.  In  fact,  X'cn  often  means  intro 
duced,  8i(J(fSQ8iv  (Sept.),  and  corresponds  to  osnfi ,  and  he  put  or  deposited 
them,  in  2  Chron.  36:  7.  The  writer  first  designates,  generally,  the  depor 
tation  of  a  part  of  the  vessels  to  Babylon,  and  then  he  names  the  particu 
lar  locality  where  they  were  there  deposited.  He  had  special  reasons  for 
so  doing,  in  reference  to  a  part  of  his  subsequent  history ;  see  Dan.  5:  3, 
4,  23.  Besides,  the  clause  in  question  leads  us  to  see,  that  the  vessels  were 
in  safe  keeping,  and  that  Nebuchadnezzar's  motive  was  probably  to  make 
acceptable  presents  (dvaO-i^ara,  as  the  Greeks  called  them  in  such  cases), 
to  his  god  Belus  —  a  thank-offering  for  the  victories  he  had  won,  and  at 
the  same  time  an  evidence  of  his  glorying  that  Belus  was  more  powerful 
than  the  God  of  the  Hebrews.  The  famous  temple  of  Belus,  at  Babylon, 
is  known  to  all.  That  the  vessels  were  put  into  the  treasure-house 
shows,  moreover,  both  the  precaution  taken  for  their  safe-keeping  and 
the  value  attached  to  them.  All  the  temples  of  antiquity  had  treasure- 
houses,  from  which  the  priests  were  supported  ;  see  Num.  31:  48 — 54. 
Josh.  6:  19.  Comp.  Mai.  3:  10.  Neh.  13:  5,  12,  13. 


4  CHAP.  I.  3. 

As  to  the  time  of  the  invasion  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  neither  Kings,  Chron., 
or  Jeremiah  give  any  date  ;  but  the  facts  recorded  by  Berosus  show,  that  it 
could  not  be  later  than  the  time  named  in  v.  1,  for  it  was  not  possible  to 
subdue  all  those  countries  in  less  than  two  years.  That  the  first  year  of  Nebu 
chadnezzar  was  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  (Jer.  25: 1.  4G:  2),  does  not  con 
tradict  this  ;  for  the  Jews  of  Palestine  (not  Daniel)  reckoned  Nebuchadnez 
zar's  first  year  as  beginning  with  his  mission  upon  the  western  invasion, 
and  a  small  part  of  that  year  fell  in  with  the  closing  part  of  Jehoiakim's  third 
year,  while  probably  the  greatest  part  of  that  first  year  corresponded  to  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim.  For  the  full  discussion  of  these  disputed  matters, 
and  justification  of  this  statement,  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  the  Excursus 
at  the  close  of  Chap.  I. 


(.3)  And  the  lung  commanded  Ashpcriaz,  the  chief  of  his  eunuchs,  to  bring  some 
of  the  sons  cf  Israel,  both  of  the  royal  seed  and  of  the  nobles, 

The  phrase  b  Tc.K'51}  means  to  command;  see  in  Esth.  1:17.  4: 13.  9: 14. 
1  Chron.  21: 17  ;  mostly  in  the  later  Hebrew.  Sometimes  ^TE&t  has  this 
sense  before  a  verb  Imperf.  with  i  conversive,  and  even  before  the  Ace. 
This  meaning  is  the  usual  one  in  Arabic  ;  and  very  frequent  in  the  Clial- 
dee,  see  Dan.  2: 12,46.  3: 13,  19,  20.  4:  23.  6:  Z±.  —  Ashpenaz  has  been 
the  subject  of  many  conjectural  etymologies  ;  but  none  of  them  are  satis 
factory.  —  The  chief  of  the  eunuchs.  In  the  later  Hebrew,  y^  (originally 
much  or  great")  is  equivalent  to  ib ,  prince  orpraefect ;  in  Chaldee,  this  is 
the  usual  sense  of  the  word  as  a  noun,  e.  g.  in  Rab-shakeh,  Eab-saris, 
Rab-mag,  etc.  In  the  N.Test.  (5«/3p>//,  (our  present  Rabbi),  seems  specially 
to  designate  a  leader  in  teaching.  As  to  TO^D  (with  Qamets  under  D , 
sometimes  treated  as  mutable  and  sometimes  as  immutable),  there  is  ev 
ery  probability  that  the  translation  here  given  (eunuchs)  is  the  true  one. 
The  oixovoiAog  of  an  oriental  king  had  charge  of  his  household,  including 
his  Harem  and  all  his  house  servants,  the  male  part  of  which  of  course 
were  eunuchs.  To  such  an  one  would  belong  the  training  up  of  servants 
who  were  to  be  the  personal  waiters  of  the  king.  That  young  persons  of 
royal  descent  and  of  noble  families  should  be  chosen  for  such  a  service, 
is  altogether  in  accordance  with  the  pride  and  haughtiness  of  the  Baby 
lonian  king,  and  the  customs  of  the  East.  The  proud  title,  king  of  kings, 
carries  with  it  the  implication  that  kings  are  servants  of  the  great  monarch. 
That  young  lads  should  be  chosen  for  such  a  service,  was  almost  a  matter 
of  course.  They  could  easily  become  acquainted  with  the  language  and 
the  customs  of  the  court,  and  were  specially  capable  of  great  personal  ac 
tivity.  In  some  passages  (see  Ges.  Lex.)  it  is  difficult  to  say,  whether 

the  original  idea  G^O  (from  G^G    w£lj-Stf  >  castravit)  is  retained  ;    e.  g. 
Gen.  37:  36.  39:  1.     At  all  events,  the  leading  sense  occasionally  is 


CHAP.  I.  4  5 

courtier  or  court-officer.  Among  oriental  kings,  their  greatest  confidants 
have  been  of  this  class  of  persons.  In  the  Turkish  court,  the  Kislar  Aga 
is  an  officer  of  the  like  kind.  Comp.  r^sn  nn  in  Esth.  1:8.  —  ^anb  ,  to 
bring,  i.  e.  carry  or  convey,  viz.  from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon.  So  C.  B. 
Mich,  and  Ros.  ;  but  Lengerke  understands  the  command  as  having  re 
spect  to  captives  already  arrived  at  Babylon.  But  if  this  were  the  case, 
why  not  employ  nngb  to  take,  rather  than  fcfSii  to  convey  ?  Yet  in  the 
particular  sense  of  bringing  them  into  the  place  of  their  training,  this  view 
of  Leng.  might  be  admitted. 

Sons  of  Israel  —  Israelites,  i.  e.  posterity  of  Jacob  or  Israel.  This  was 
the  first  meaning  ;  the  second  was  the  ten  tribes,  who  revolted  with  Jero 
boam  ;  and  after  the  exile,  the  name  was  again  used  in  its  primitive  sense, 
as  it  is  here.  The  sequel  designates  the  narrow  limits  of  the  choice  to 
be  made  by  Ashpenaz.  That  lasra  is  employed  to  designate  some  of  the 
sons,  is  agreeable  to  common  usage  ;  see  Ges.  Lex.  "^  .  —  Both  of  the 
royal  seed  and  of  the  nobles.  Such  a  translation  makes  this  clause  an 
epexegetical  limitation  of  the  preceding  expression.  C.  B.  Mich,  makes 
three  classes,  by  interpreting  the  three  classes  as  coordinate  ;  and  so  Ro- 
senm.  This  is  a  possible,  but  not  a  probable,  interpretation.  —  ros&att  yyjn  , 
lit.  seed  of  the  kingdom  or  of  the  kingly  power,  i.  e.  of  royal  descent  ;  see 
the  same  idiom  (which  belongs  to  the  later  Hebrew)  in  2  K.  25:  25.  Jer. 
41:  1.  Ezek.  17:  13.  —  DTSPPfett  ,  a  word  of  foreign  origin,  Pehlvi  par- 
dom,  Sanscrit  prathama  —  primores,  magnates,  nobles.  The  Greek  TTQCO- 
rog  seems  to  be,  originally,  of  the  same  origin.  The  word  receives  the 
form  of  the  Heb.  plural  here;  as  transplanted  words  frequently  do. 
Good  is  the  version  of  Josephus  (Archaeol.  X.  10.  1),  zovg  evyKvsGrd- 
rovg  ;  so  Polychronius,  rcof  evywwv.  Comp.  in  this  the  fulfilment  of  Isa. 
39:  7.  The  whole  transaction  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  oriental 
customs. 

(4)  Young  lads,  in  whom  was  no  bfemish,  and  of  goodly  appearance,  and  skilled 
in  every  kind  of  wisdom,  and  acquainted  with  knowledge,  and  discerning  in  science, 
and  who  were  able  to  stand  in  waiting  at  the  palace  of  the  king;  and  to  teach  them 
the  writing  and  the  language  of  the  Chaldees. 


The  word  tn^  is,  in  our  English  version,  translated  children.  Of 
itself  it  does  not  determine  the  age  ;  and  it  may  be  rendered  boys,  youth, 
or  young  lads,  as  above.  The  Persians  began  education,  properly  so 
called,  at  the  age  of  fourteen,  (Plat.  Alcib.  I.  §  37)  ;  and  the  young  man's 
age  of  action  was  seventeen,  (Cyrop.  I.  2).  In  all  probability,  the  He 
brew  lads  in  question  were  some  twelve  to  fifteen  years  of  age,  when 
selected.  The  noun  tn/ij^  is  in  the  Ace.,  and  depends  on  the  Inf. 

1* 


6  CHAP.  I.  4. 

which  latter  depends  on  T2JO1 .  This  shows  that  the  Soph  Pasuq  ( \ ) 
does  not  always  divide  the  verses  according  to  the  sense  or  grammatical 
construction  ;  comp.  2  Sam.  17:  27 — 29,  where  is  a  notable  example  of  a 
similar  nature.  No  blemish,  etc. ;  such  a  custom  still  pervades  the  East, 
e.  g.  in  the  Turkish  and  Persian  courts,  as  to  the  selection  of  personal 
servants.  Everything  is  required  to  be  beautiful  or  magnificent,  which 
surrounds  the  person  of  the  king.  E^XE  =  dtffl  =  Greek  [Awpog,  which 
has  the  same  sense.  —  ft**")1?  ^"^.  >  lit-  goodly  of  appearance,  Gramm. 
§  110,  2.  —  dibits,  Part.  Hiph.,  but  divested  of  its  causative  sense,  in 
case  we  translate  it  skilled,  intelligent ;  but  if  we  revert  to  the  original 
signification  of  the  root  (to  look),  we  may  see  that  it  is  used  elliptically 
in  Hiphil  =  causing  [the  mind]  to  look  or  attend  to,  and  as  a  consequence 
skilled.  —  ftE'sin  >  wisdom,  is  of  widely  extended  meaning  in  Hebrew,  im 
porting  (in  its  largest  sense)  a  knowledge  of  all  things,  i.  e.  of  what  is 
true  respecting  them,  and  here  employed  as  nearly  equivalent  to  our 
English  word  learning.  —  n?1!  ^"p1] ,  Part.  Const,  pi.  Gramm.  §  132, 1.  b  ; 
acquainted  with  knowledge  is  a  repetition  of  the  preceding  idea  in  another 
form,  for  the  sake  of  intensity.  So  also  is  it  with  the  clause,  discerning 
in  science ;  "O^^a  importing  properly  the  power  of  discriminating  be 
tween  things,  or  of  discerning  their  properties  and  relations.  Construc 
tion  as  before.  This  accumulation  of  different  phrases  nearly  equivalent 
in  meaning,  is  after  the  common  usage  of  the  Hebrews,  and  plainly,  as 
has  been  remarked,  is  intended  to  designate  intensity  of  expression,  be 
ing  equivalent  to  the  simple  declaration,  skilled  in  knowledge  of  every 
kind.  —  TVS  ,  lit.  strength,  force,  here  ability,  power.  —  ifcs^ ,  standing  was 
the  position  of  waiters  in  readiness  to  do  their  master's  will.  Hence  the 
secondary  sense  of  the  verb  *rqy  ,  viz.  serve,  minister  to,  Ges.  Lex.  s.  v. 
I.  a.  Usually  it  is  followed,  in  such  cases,  by  ijjfcb  before,  joined  with 
the  designation  of  the  person  served,  as  in  v.  5.  — ^?"£i,  palace,  i.  e.  a 

I*1  -      ,-    tl     ^ 

large  magnificent  building ;  which  corresponds  to  the  Arabic  verb  J^XA^  , 
to  be  great  or  lofty.  The  word  is  properly  generic,  and  so  may  designate 
a  palace,  or  (as  often)  the  temple  of  Jehovah.  —  d^bbl ,  and  to  teach  them, 
which  falls  back,  as  to  construction,  upon  the  TQX1']  of  v.  3 ;  for  Ashpe- 
naz  was  charged  with  the  education  of  the  Jewish  lads.  —  l&d ,  lit.  writ 
ing.  The  accent  (  Tiphha)  separates  it  from  the  sequel,  and  shows  that 
the  Punctators  took  it  as  not  in  the  const,  state  before  d^b3  (implied), 
but  as  standing  by  itself,  and  meaning  books  or  literature.  This  is  made 
probable  by  "isd-PDa  in  v.  17,  which  cannot  mean  merely  every  kind  of 
alphabetic  characters,  but  every  kind  of  literature.  Gesenius  (in  Lex.) 
understands  it  as  meaning  the  written  characters  of  the  Chaldee ;  and 
,this,  at  first  view,  seems  the  most  facile  interpretation ;  but  v.  17  appears 


CHAP.  I.  5.  7 

plainly  to  modify  it.  —  The  tongue  of  the  Chaldees  is  differently  interpreted. 
Lengerke  says  it  designates  the  proper  language  of  the  original  barba 
rian  Chaldees  from  northern  Mesopotamia ;  and  Maurer  (Comm.  in  loc.) 
appears  inclined  to  this,  and  also  Havernick  (Comm.).  Also  Winer 
(Chald.  Gramm.  p.  15,  English  version,  ed.  Hackett)  seems  disposed  to 
think  favorably  of  it.  But  in  Dan.  2:  4,  the  Chaldees  address  Nebu 
chadnezzar  in  Aramaean  (rpr'nx),  and  he  replies  in  the  same  tongue. 
It  would  seem,  therefore,  to  be  the  court  language  of  that  period.  Comp. 
2  Kings  18:  26.  Isa.  36:  11.  Ezra  4:  7,  where  the  same  appellation  oc 
curs.  That  it  should  here  be  called  the  tongue  of  the  Chaldees  is  natu 
ral  enough,  since  the  court  was  principally  made  up  of  Chaldeans.  That 
the  Chaldees,  in  their  original  and  barbarous  state,  (provided  we  admit 
that  those  northern  barbarians  had  emigrated  into  Babylonia),  had  a 
written  language,  is  very  improbable.  Rabshakeh,  the  commander  of 
the  Assyrian  forces,  addressed  the  Jewish  courtiers  in  Hebrew,  (Isa.  36: 
11)  ;  and  he  is  invited  by  them  to  speak  in  Aramaean.  That  the  court 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  spoke  the  same  language,  Dan.  2:  4  seq.  shows.  But 
the  young  Jewish  lads  in  question,  probably  were  not  acquainted  with  it 
so  early  in  life  as  when  they  went  into  exile.  Hence  it  was  necessary 
that  they  should  be  taught  it.  That  it  was  a  written  language,  would 
appear  from  ^iBD  being  connected  with  it,  in  our  text.  With  Eos.  in 
loc.,  Ges.  and  Hitzig  on  Isa.  36:  11,  and  C.  B.  Michaelis  (Comm.  in 
Hagiog.),  I  deem  it  most  probable,  that  the  same  language,  i.  e.  Ara 
maean-  Chaldee,  is  meant  here,  as  in  Dan.  2:  4. 

(5)  And  the  king  assigned  to  them  a  daily  allowance  from  the  delicate  viands  of 
the  king  and  from  the  wine  which  he  drank,  and  that  they  should  be  nurtured  three 
years,  and  after  the  close  of  them  that  they  should  stand  in  waiting  before  the  king. 

h,B^ ,  Imperf.  Piel  of  rwa,  Gramm.  §  74.  Note  9.  —  n^  na-n ,  lit.  the 
thing  of  a  day,  i.  e.  quotidianum,  something  belonging  to  the  day  ;  which 
is  made  still  more  specific  by  '1721121 ,  on  each  day,  lit.  during  its  day  ;  see 
Luke  11:  3,  to  xatf  rmsQav.  The  English  expression,  used  in  the  ver 
sion  above,  gives  the  exact  idea  of  the  whole  phrase.  So  the  Hebrews 
say :  .ftrin  fWiB  =  each  year ;  CSS2  c>5  =  once  as  before  or  one  time  as 
another,  etc.  —  iSn&E  is  evidently  a  foreign  word,  the  meaning  of  which 
is  probably  given  in  the  translation.  The  most  facile  etymology  seems 
to  be  the  old  Persian  sU  c>L>  (pad-bah)  father's  meat,  i.  e.  king's  food, 
and  so  it  designates  figuratively  delicate  viands,  costly  bits,  or  choice 
food.  This  agrees  well  with  the  other  passages  where  the  word  is  em 
ployed,  viz.  in  vs.  8,  13,  15,  16.  11:  26;  and  also  with  the  Syriac 

?  as  employed  by  Ephrem  Syrus  (I.  382  F.  423  A.),  and  by 


8  CHAP.  L  5. 

Bar  Hebraeus  (p.  331),  to  designate  dainties,  luxurious  food.  So  Gese- 
nius,  Winer  (in  Lex.),  Van  Bohlen  (Symb.  ad  interp.  SS.  e  ling.  Pers.), 
Rosenm.,  Maurer,  and  Lengerke  (Comm.)  ;  but  Lorsbach  (Archiv.  etc. 
II.  s.  312  f.)  prefers  the  etymology  from  ^^  (pot)  idol  and  sL  (bah) 
food;  to  which  Havernick  and  Ftirst  (Concord.  Heb.)  give  their  hearty 
assent.  But  the  context  (see  v.  8,  specially  v.  10,  where  bsxa  is  substi 
tuted  for  aar.B  ,  with  vs.  13,  15,  16)  shows  that  the  ordinary  food  of  the 
king  is  assigned  to  the  young  Hebrews,  and  not  merely  such  food  as  is 
presented  to  idols,  on  feast-days  appropriate  to  the  honoring  of  them. 
Of  course,  the  former  sense  is  preferable. 

Very  different  conclusions  are-  drawn  from  this  passage,  in  respect  to  the  alleged 
demeanor  of  Daniel.  Lengerke  (Comm.)  and  others  argue,  that  it  was  only  during 
the  Maccabaean  times  that  such  superstition  about  food  existed  among  the  Jews, 
and  therefore  that  the  author  of  the  book  drew  his  views  from  that  source,  and  must 
have  lived  at  that  time;  while  Havernick  and  others,  urging  the  view  of  Lorsbach  as 
to  etymology,  strenuously  vindicate  the  conduct  of  Daniel  on  the  ground  of  avoiding 
participation  in  idolatrous  feasts.  Both  parties  seem  to  have  made  too  much  of  the 
matter.  Daniel  needs  no  other  vindication  than  the  perusal  of  Lev.  11:4  scq.  20: 
25,  and  the  consideration,  that  oftentimes  the  king's  choice  food  would  not  only  con 
sist  of  animals  forbidden  to  the  Jews,  but  also  that  not  unfrequently  what  had  been 
presented  before  idols  would  be  furnished  for  him.  The  same  was  the  case  with  his 
wine.  Of  course,  as  conscientious  Jews,  Daniel  and  his  companions  were  bound  to 
avoid  eating  it  indiscriminately,  if  it  was  in  their  power  to  shun  it.  Such  demeanor 
was  peculiar  to  no  age,  as  it  respected  sincere  disciples  of  Moses.  To  represent  such 
abstinence  as  a  grave  argument  for  the  composition  of  the  book  so  late  as  the  time  of 
the  Maccabees  (so  Lengerke),  is  little  short  of  trifling.  Even  if  Daniel's  conduct  was 
tinctured  with  superstition,  was  there  no  case  of  this  nature  before  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees  ? 


The  *a  before  ssns  means  (as  often  elsewhere)  some  of,  a  portion  of; 
and  so  also  before  the  following  ^  .  —  "npnaa  ,  lit.  of  his  drinking,  i.  e. 
what  he  drank.  The  noun  is  sing.,  although  it  appears  to  have  a  plur. 
suffix  ;  for  in  nouns  from  roots  <rfo  ,  the  original  third  radical  (i)  often 
returns  before  a  suffix,  when  the  noun  is  in  the  singular,  and  gives  it  the 
appearance  of  a  plural  ;  Gramm.  §  91,  9,  in  Note.  —  D^?^  ,  lit.  to 
grow  them,  or  to  make  them  grow  large  ;  hence  to  educate  or  nurture  them  . 
—  Three  years,  the  Ace.  of  time,  Gramm.  §1  1  6,  2.  For  the  plural  tna^  with 
a  numeral,  §  118,  2.  —  Er^I?^  »  from  or  after  the  termination  of  them,  viz. 
the  years  ;  Dag.  forte  omitted  in  the  p  ,  §  20,  3.  b.  —  ^S?  ,  as  before, 
stand  in  waiting  ;  for  the  form  of  the  vowels,  see  §  62.  3.  This  verb 
also  depends  on  }m  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  ;  so  that  we  have  here, 
first  an  Ace.  case,  then  an  Inf.,  and  lastly  a  verb  in  the  Subj.  ;  all  de 
pendent  on  the  same  verb.  Such  changes  in  the  construction  of  a  sen- 


CHAP.  I.  6—8.  9 

tence,  i.  e.  such  a  mixture  of  different  constructions  after  the  same  verb, 
are  not  uncommon  in  the  Hebrew;  comp.  Isa.  32:  6. 

(6)  And  there  were  among  them  some  of  the  sons  of  Judah,  Daniel,  Hananiah, 
Mishael,  and  Azariah. 

These  names,  like  all  other  proper  names  in  Hebrew,  are  significant. 
But  I  need  not  repeat  here  what  the  reader  will  find  in  his  Lexicon. 
What  the  writer  designs  to  say  is,  that  while  there  was  a  number  of  Jew 
ish  captives,  those  named  were  selected  from  them,  as  having  something 
in  their  appearance  that  was  promising  or  prepossessing. 

(7)  And  the  chief  of  the  eunuchs  assigned  names  to  them  :  to  Daniel  he  assigned 
Belteshazzar;  and  to  Hananiah,  Shadrach;  and  to  Mishael,  Meshach;  and  to  Aza 
riah,  Abed-nego. 

These  new  names  also  are  significant ;  and  the  Lexicon  sufficiently 
develops  their  probable  etymology.  A  custom,  like  this,  of  imposing 
new  names  when  persons  entered  upon  a  new  condition  or  new  relations 
in  life,  is  extensively  developed  in  the  O.  Test. :  see  Abram  and  Abra 
ham,  Gen.  17:  5;  Joseph  and  Zaphnath-Paaneah,  Gen.  41:  45;  comp. 
2  Sam.  12:  24,  25.  2  K.  23:  34.  24:  17  (a  case  in  which  Nebuchadnez 
zar  was  concerned).  Esth.  2:  7.  Ez.  5:  14  comp.  with  Hag.  1:  14.  2:  2, 
21.  So  in  N.  Test. :  Mark  3: 16, 17.  These  names,  thus  imposed  anew, 
generally  designate  something  which  is  intended  to  honor  the  persons 
who  receive  them,  or  to  honor  the  god  that  is  worshipped  by  him  who 
imposes  them,  or  to  commemorate  some  event  that  is  interesting,  etc. 
Thus  Belteshazzar  —prince  of  Bel,  i.  e.  a  prince  to  whom  Bel  is  regarded 
as  propitious,  or  to  whom  the  giver  of  the  name  wishes  Bel  to  be  propi 
tious,  etc.  —  Of  I'M  no  satisfactory  explanation  has  yet  been  given.  We 
have  no  knowledge,  from  any  other  quarter,  of  such  a  divinity  among  the 
Babylonians  ;  but  we  find  I'ss ,  i.  e.  the  planet  Mercury,  in  many  names. 
Gesenius  supposes  IM  to  stand  for  "tea .  C.  B.  Michaelis  conjectures  that 
the  word  comes  from  fiS3  to  shine,  so  that  it  means  the  splendid  one.  This 
conjecture  seems  plausible. 

(8)  And  Daniel  anxiously  sought  that  he  might  not  defile  himself  with  the  deli 
cate  viands  of  the  king  and  with  the  wine  which  he  drank,  and  he  made  request  of 
the  chief  of  the  eunuchs  that  he  might  not  defile  himself. 

l'ab-^5  .  .  .  db^  ,  lit.  put  it  to  his  heart  =  the  English  took  it  to  hearty 
i.  e.  was  anxious,  solicitous,  concerned ;  Ges.  Lex.  oito  2.  h.  For  the 
form  of  the  verb,  see  §  71.  n.  7.  —  "lira*  ,  conj.  that ;  see  Lex.  B.  —  For 
the  form  of  ^xann  ( Hithp.),  see  §  63,  3.  —  "nnbTS  as  above,  in  the  sing. 
-  bxan1!  ,  in  Pause,  §  29,  4.  a.  The  probable  ground  of  this  request 
may  be  found  in  the  precepts  recorded  in  Lev.  11:  4  seq.  20:  25. 


10  CHAP.  I.  9,  10. 

(9)  And  God  made  Daniel  an  object  of  kindness  and  compassion  before  the  chief 
of  the  eunuchs.  (Lit.  God  gave  Daniel  to  kindness,  etc.) 

"jfn^  ,  §  65,  2.  —  The  article  before  t^n'bx  is  designed  to  be  emphatic, 
the  God,  viz.  of  the  Hebrews,  or  the  only  true  God.  —  i&nb  etc.  to  kind 
ness,  etc.,  the  literal  form  of  expression  we  cannot  successfully  imitate  in 
the  English  language.  In  the  later  Hebrew,  b  stands  not  unfrequently 
(see  Lex.)  before  the  Ace.  ;  and  verbs  of  giving  govern  two  Accusatives, 
§  136,  2.  But  here,  this  is  not  a  probable  solution  of  the  construction. 

—  ijjftlp  ,  before  or  in  the  view  of,  referring  to  the  person  from  whom  the 
kindness  proceeded. 

(10)  And  the  chief  of  the  eunuchs  said  to  Daniel  :  I  fear  my  master  the  king,  who 
hath  appointed  your  food  and  your  drink:  for  why  should  he  see  your  countenances 
sad,  more  than  [the  countenances]  of  the  lads  who  are  of  your  age,  and  you  thus 
make  me  forfeit  my  head  to  the  king  ? 

"nsfifcn  ,  §  67,  1.  —  «-TJ  Part.  §  49,  2.  a,    §  131,  2.  a,   §  132,  1.  a.  - 
*y-i&  ,  sing.,  different  from  ^Sx  or  laSs  ,  which  are  in  the  plur.  with  suff. 

—  t5^pyj3E  ,  sing,  again,  as  in  v.  5,  although  the  suff.  appears  to  belong 
to  a  plur.  noun  ;  see  in  §  91,  9.  —  rtttb  iirx  ,  for  why  ;  see  rnrx  in  Deut. 
3:  24.  Judg.  9:  17.  "and  Lex.  B.  3.  ;   also  ircfcis  in  Cant.  1:  7.     Gesenius 
and  Lengerke  render  the  two  words  as  =  ne,  connecting  the  clause  thus  : 


I  fear  .  .  .  lest  he  should  see,  etc.,  and  they  compare  the  Syriac 

lest,    that  not,   and  the    Syr.,  Chald.,  Ar.,  |lo?  XV  ,  Co  ,  ne,  lest,  not. 

The  sense  of  the  passage  is  well  enough  developed  by  this  interpre 
tation,  but  not  the  shape  of  the  phraseology.  Doubtless  nsab  is  em 
ployed  in  questions  that  are  tantamount  to  a  negative  or  prohibition  ; 
but  there  is  no  need,  in  any  case,  of  directly  assuming  the  negative  as  the 
meaning  of  n52b  .  Comp.  moreover  Neh.  6:  3.  Ecc,  5:  5.  7:  16,  17. 
Rosenm.  and  Maurer  defend  the  meaning  first  given.  —  t*Brr,  Part.,  sad, 
tetricus,  i.  e.  gloomy,  sour,  =  oxv&Qwnd,  Matt.  6:  16.  The  idea  of  scowl 
ing,  whether  from  anger  or  suffering,  seems  to  be  the  true  literal  notion 
affixed  to  the  word.  —  Before  Ei^n  there  is  an  implied  repetition  of 
153  (face),  which  breviloquence  here  omits  ;  see  the  like  in  the  Chaldee 
of  4:  13,  30.  —  D5^3  ,  lit.  according  to  your  age,  i.  e.  your  contempo 
raries,  or  those  of  the  same  age.  ^a  properly  means  orUs,  a  circle; 
and  hence,  both  in  Heb.  and  Arabic,  age,  ysvsa.  The  secondary  meaning 
of  the  word  (exultation}  would  be  inappropriate  here.  —  nnrrrn,  from  nin, 
and  forming  a  regular  Piel,  §71,7;  lit.  and  so  ye  will  make  guilty  my  head, 
etc.  The  word  ^djsh  may  have  either  a  literal  or  a  tropical  sense.  In 
the  former  case,  the  whole  phrase  means  what  the  translation  above  ex 
presses.  Lengerke  renders  the  verb  by  verwirket,  i.  e.  forfeit.  The  idea 


CHAP.  I.  11,  12. 

is,  that  he  would  be  exposed  to  decapitation,  or  to  strangulation.  The 
tropical  sense  would  be  :  Endanger  my  life  ;  for  Irish  may  be  used  in 
such  a  sense,  1  Sam.  29:  4  ;  and  so  head  is  used  with  us. 

(11)  And  Daniel  said  to  Meltsar,  whom  the  chief  of  the  eunuchs  had  appointed 
over  Daniel,  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah  ; 


rt  ,  probably  a  word  from  the  old  Persian,  ^Uo  ,  praefectm 

7 
vim,  i.  e.  butler  or  steward,  the  derivation  being  from  a  foreign  source 

like  that  of  many  other  names  in  this  book.  Most,  probably  all,  of  the 
proper  names  were  originally  appellatives  ;  and  hence  their  significance. 
In  the  present  case,  the  name  of  office  seems  to  go  over  into,  or  to  be 
used  as,  a  kind  of  proper  name  ;  as  is  often  the  case  with  us.  It  might  be 
rendered  chief  butler  or  steward  ;  for  the  article  prefixed  to  it  seems  to 
indicate  such  a  meaning,  inasmuch  as  the  article  is  not  usually  prefixed  to 
strictly  proper  names,  §  108.  1.  It  would  seem,  from  this  verse,  that  the 
care  of  the  young  Hebrews,  in  respect  to  nutriment,  was  assigned  by  Ashpe- 
naz,  the  head  master  of  the  king's  household,  appropriately  to  the  steward  ; 
who  in  the  present  case  was  addressed  by  Daniel,  because  he  sustained 
this  office.  What  was  said  by  Daniel  ("IES^)  is  related  in  the  next  verse; 
so  that  the  division  of  the  verses  here  by  a  Soph  Pasuq  is  inappropriate, 
because  the  next  verse  properly  constitutes  the  Ace.  after  the  verb  just 
named. 

(12)  Make  trial  now  of  thy  servants,  for  ten  days  ;    and  let  them  give  us  of  the 
vegetables  that  we  may  eat,  and  water  that  we  may  drink. 

ba  ,  Imper.  Piel  of  n&a  ,  §  48,  5.  §  74.  n.  9.  —  xa  ,  now  or  1  pray 
thee,  intensive,  i.  e.  increasing  the  energy  of  the  request.  —  Thy  servants, 
i.  e.  the  speaker  uses  the  third  person  plural,  in  describing  himself  and 
his  companions,  instead  of  the  first  person,  us.  Such  was  the  usual  mode 
of  courteous  address  to  superiors,  among  the  Hebrews,  inasmuch  as  they 
avoided  the  use  of  /and  thou  in  addresses  of  this  nature  ;  Ges.  Lehrgeb. 
p.  742.  —  Ten  days,  Ace.  of  time,  §  116,  2.  On  the  special  import  of  few, 
see  remarks  on  v.  20  below.  —  siaw?1]  ,  §  65,  2,  lit.  and  let  them  give, 
§  125,  3.  c  ;  no  definite  subject  to  the  verb  being  mentioned,  it  may  be 
rendered  either  in  the  passive  =  let  there  be  given,  or  in  the  active  =  let 
some  give,  §  134.  3.  b.  —  "^  of,  or  some  of,  see  Lex.  —  taisn-rrr  ,  lit.  things 
sowed,  i.  e.  vegetables  in  this  case,  such  as  pulse,  lentiles,  salads,  etc.  (not 
bread-corn)  ;  with  the  article,  §  107,  n.  1.5.—  rpsxai.  ,  §  48,  3.  1.  that 
conj.,  §  152.  I.  e.  —  D*;Q  omits  the  ^  before  it,  §  151,4,  or  else  there  is 
a  change  of  construction.  It  omits  the  article  also,  as  unnecessary  for  the 
sake  of  distinction.  In  the  preceding  case,  the  class  of  [eatable]  vegeta- 


12  CHAP.  I.  13—15. 

bles  is  adverted  to,  by  employing  the  article.  Such  occurrences  as  to 
the  use  and  omission  of  the  article  before  nouns  apparently  in  the  same 
predicament,  are  not  unfrequent  ;  see  Fs.  104:  18.  105:  18.  107:  4.  114: 
4,  6.  117:  1.  118:  8,  9.  121:  6.  125:  4,  etc. 

(13)  And  let  our  countenance  and  the  (Countenance  of  the  young  lads  who  eat  the 
delicate  viands  of  the  king  be  inspected  before  thee,  and  according  to  what  thou  shalt 
see,  deal  with  thy  servants. 


Niph.  Imperf.  of  nso  ;  plur.,  because  both  ^Jjrna  and  the  fol 
lowing  nx'rg  are  the  subjects  of  the  verb.  Plainly  rrK'ra  is  sing,  in  both 
cases,  §  91,  9.  The  n  before  d">b:pj*  is  a  relative  demonstrative  =  who, 
§  107  (at  the  beginning).  —  n&nn  Tij&oi.  ,  not  (with  most  translators),  as 
it  shall  seem  good  (Sept.  xa&w$  lav  &&QS),  but  according  to  that  which 
thou  mayest  see,  i.  e.  according  to  our  appearance.  So  Theodotion  :  Y.O.I 
xa&oji;  lav  idrjg.  The  final  vowel  here  in  Jnspfi  (Tsere,  and  not  the  nor 
mal  Seahol),  is  plainly  after  the  analogy  of  the  Aramaean,  §  74.  n.  17.  — 

us,  as  in  v.  12. 


(14)  And  he  hearkened  to  them  in  respect  to  this  matter,  and  he  made  trial  of 
them  ten  das. 


In  ^O'nb  ,  the  article  is  so  specific  that  it  approaches  very  near  to  the 
demonstrative  ;  as  in  di^ii  .  —  The  demonst.  n-rft  renders  still  more  in 
tensive  the  specification.  —  tS5^  ,  §  74,  n.  19,  Piel  Imperf.  of  MG3  with 
suffix. 

(15)  And  after  the  close  often  days  their  countenance  appeared  fairer,  and  [they 
were]  fuller  in  flesh,  than  all  the  lads  who  ate  the  delicate  viands  of  the  king. 

FiS£Ei  as  in  v.  5.  lit.  the  cutting  off,  and  so  it  may  mean  part  or  portion 
as  in  v.  2,  or  end,  close,  as  in  v.  5  and  here.  The  fern,  ending  n-  has  a 
Qamets  immutable  ;  §  79.  n.  2.  b.  §  84.  V.  13.  Dagh.  in  p  omitted  as  be 
fore  in  v.  5.  —  n&na  ,  sing,  (and  so  also  the  subject  of  this  verb,  viz.  the  fol 
lowing  CFnjjnE  ,  which  the  sing,  aio  plainly  shows),  lit.  showed  itself  =  ap 
peared.  -itoa  ''Sp'iasi  ,  §  110,  2.  The  pronoun  dii  they  were  (§119.  2), 
is  implied  here  after  "iba  ,  and  seems  to  be  omitted  because  the  preced 
ing  noun  has  it,  and  so  it  might  easily  be  supplied.  h^"l"1.3  lit.  fat;  the 
more  comely  mode  of  expression  among  us  employs  full,  in  such  cases. 
I  have  translated  fuller,  because  the  IB  which  follows,  shows  that  the 
adjective  is  to  be  understood  in  the  comparative  sense,  §  117,  1.  This  in 
fluence  of  -,73  extends  back  also  to  SIB  ,  and  so  we  may  translate  fairer. 
The  Part.  d^Xfi  appropriately  denotes  continued  action,  and  such  a 
Part,  is  of  any  tense  demanded  by  the  context  ;  §  131,  1. 


CHAP.  I.  16,  17.  13 

(1G)  And  Meltsar  took  away  their  delicious  viands  and  the  wine  which  they  drank, 
and  gave  them  vegetables. 

NiU5,  Part.  =the  Lat.  Imperf.  when  joined  (as  here)  with  rTfi ,  §  131, 
2.  c ;  took  away,  removed,  Lex.  s.  v.  2.  d.  —  dFpryJri ,  lit.  the  wine  of  their 
drinking  ;  sing,  as  before.  —  h,rb  as  KttJD  above,  J-prn  being  implied,  de 
noting  continued  or  repeated  action  in  the  past,  like  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Imperfect. 

(17)  And  those  four  lads  —  to  them  God  gave  knowledge  and  intelligence  in 
every  kind  of  learning  and  wisdom  ;  moreover,  Daniel  understood  every  kind  of  vision 
and  dreams. 

Heb.  lit.  As  to  those  lads,  the  four  of  them,  being  in  the  case  abs.  here  ; 
§  142,  2.  Qnssnx*,  §  118, 1.  c,  in  apposition  here  with  the  preceding  noun, 
and  epexegetical.  See  the  like  construction  of  the  numeral  in  Ezek  .  1 
8,  10.  10:  10, 12.  —  ^?fo?in  ,  Inf.  Hiph.  nominascens,  i.  e.  it  is  used  here 
as  a  noun  in  the  Ace.  §  128,  1.  —  1BO  learning,  see  v.  4.  As  it  has  no 
article,  and  is  preceded  by  ^3 ,  the  whole  phrase  designates  every  kind  of 
learning.  —  •"rasn  as  in  v.  4.  ^ni ,  the  Vav  here  stands  before  a  clause 
designating  some  contrast  or  distinction,  which  is  also  implied  in  our  Eng 
lish  moreover,  i.  e.  something  more  may  be  said  of  Daniel,  who  is  here 
distinguished  from  his  fellows  by  some  additional  endowment.  —  "psft 
(Hiph.),  although  it  has  often  a  causative  sense  =  teach,  instruct,  i.  e. 
make  to  know,  here,  like  Kal,  means  scivit,  intdlexit;  see  in  Lex. 
Nearly  the  exact  sense  is  given  in  the  version  above.  The  meaning  is, 
that  Daniel  was  able  to  discern  or  distinguish  (the  proper  sense  of  "ps) 
the  import  of  every  kind  of  vision  and  of  dreams  ;  but  according  to  Heb. 
usage,  "pTn  is  applied  only  to  a  prophetic  vision  divinely  sent,  i.  e.  to 
something  seen  in  a  kind  of  supernatural  ecstasy  ;  comp.  Dan.  8: 1,  2, 13. 
9:  24.  nitf^n  ,  on  the  other  hand,  may  of  itself  mean  any  kind  of  dream  ; 
but  its  connection  here  with  "p'tn  shows  it  to  be  the  intention  of  the  writer 
to  include  only  such  dreams  as  are  of  the  like  character  with  prophetic 
visions.  Jacob's  dream,  Gen.  28:  12 — 16;  Joseph's  dreams,  Gen.  37: 
5 — 11;  Pharaoh's  dream,  Gen.  41:1  seq. ;  the  dream  of  the  Midianitish 
soldier,  Judg.  7:  13 — 15  ;  Nebuchadnezzar's  in  Dan.  ii.,  iv. ;  Daniel's  in 
Dan.  vii.,  etc. ;  seem  to  be  all  of  the  character  here  intended.  The  seem 
ing  visions  of  a  disordered  brain,  or  the  fugitive  and  ordinary  dreams 
that  proceed  merely  from  a  disturbed  state  of  the  physical  system,  can 
not  properly  be  supposed  to  come  within  the  writer's  design ;  for  this 
would  be  merely  to  compare  Daniel  with  the  ovetgnaxonog  or  OVMQO- 
cpavtog  of  the  heathen,  and  therefore  it  would  not  exhibit  anything  of  im 
portance  in  which  this  young  Hebrew  exceeded  his  companions.  Nor 
2 


14  CHAP.  I.  18. 

can  it  be  said  that  the  Hebrews,  who  so  often  appeal  to  the  fugitive,  un 
substantial,  and  trifling  character  of  ordinary  dreams,  did  not  distinguish 
between  them  and  such  ones  as  the  context  bids  us  to  suppose  in  the 
present  case,  "jitn  is  something  seen  by  the  mind  sv  IxatdGei,  whether 
in  a  sleeping  or  waking  condition  of  the  body  ;  while  m'bn  is  something 
which  the  mind  conceives,  while  the  body  is  asleep  ;  and  in  cases  like 
that  before  us,  something  conceived  of  by  virtue  of  impressions  from  a 
superior  power. 

In  reviewing  the  disclosures  made  by  the  narrative  contained  in  vs.  12  —  17,  it 
seems  plain,  that  the  writer  meant  to  exhibit  the  thriving  state  of  the  lads  upon  their 
slender  diet,  as  a  special  blessing  of  Providence  upon  their  pious  resolution  ;  for  so,  in 
view  of  the  Mosaic  prescriptions,  it  would  seem  that  it  ought  to  be  called.  Yet  it  is 
not  certain  that  the  writer  intends  their  thrift  to  be  regarded  by  his  readers  as  strictly 
miraculous.  Certainly  in  a  climate  so  excessively  hot  as  that  of  Babylon,  a  vegetable 
diet,  for  many  months  in  the  year,  would  be  better  adapted  to  occasion  .fairness  of 
countenance  and  fulness  of  flesh,  than  a  luxurious  diet  of  various  highly  seasoned 
meats.  That  the  God  of  heaven  rewarded  the  pious  resolution  and  the  persevering 
abstinence  of  the  Jewish  lads,  lies  upon  the  face  of  the  narrative  ;  and  this  is  a  truth 
adapted  to  useful  admonition,  specially  to  the  Jews  who  dwelt  among  the  heathen. 
and  were  under  strong  temptations  to  transgress  the  Mosaic  laws.  The  uncommon 
and  extraordinary  powers,  which  were  conferred  upon  those  young  Hebrews,  are 
placed  in  such  a  light,  as  to  show  that  their  peculiar  gifts  were  the  consequence  of 
their  pious  resolution  and  firmness. 

(18)  And  at  the  end  of  the  days,  when  the  king  had  commanded  to  present  them. 
then  did  the  chief  of  the  eunuchs  present  them  before  Nebuchadnezzar. 


b  =  T-^  i^b,  Dagh.  forte  being  omitted  in  the  p;  see  under  v.  2. 
Geseriius  (in  Lex.)  says  that  *{&  =  Vi"?  >  an^  moreover  that  it  is  equiva 
lent  to  "32  in  signification.  For  substance  this  is  true  ;  for  fc,"2  and  V  both 
are  used,  separately,  to  mark  the  terminus  a  quo  of  time,  and  when  combined 
they  would  seem  to  have  merely  an  augmented  force.  More  minutely 
examined,  however,  b  =  at  a  particular  time,  i.  e.  the  time  in  which  this 
or  that  is  done  ;  while  }?  marks  the  terminus  from  which  one  begins  to 
count  the  doing.  Strictly  considered,  the  combination  "]^b  unites  the  two 
ideas  of  at  and  from.  Lit.  we  might  translate  thus  :  at  from  the  close, 
i.  e.  at  the  time  from  which  the  close  is  reckoned.  In  v.  5  above,  the 
same  word  occurs  without  the  b  .  It  is  easy,  however,  to  see  that  the  b 
in  the  present  case  gives  additional  significancy  to  the  expression.  — 
"nris;  when,  as  often  elsewhere,  i.  e.  in  which  time,  in  relation  to  the  pre 
ceding  designation  of  time.  —  ^EN  had  commanded,  see  in  v.  3  for  this 
sense,  and  for  Pluperf.  §  124,  2.  —  CKW  ,  then  brought  he  them,  Gramm. 
p.  99,  2d  par.  comp.  §  152.  B.  1.  It  is  in  the  Imperf.  form  with  the 
usual  suff.  D-  ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  preceding  Inf.  (apparently  of 


CHAP.  I.  19,  20.  15 

the  like  form)  takes  the  suff.  c-  ,  see  Par.  of  Inf.  p.  292.  These  suf 
fixes  refer  not  merely  to  Daniel  and  his  three  particular  friends,  but  to 
all  the  Jewish  lads  (see  in  v.  19)  whom  the  king  had  originally  com 
manded  to  select  ;  see  vs.  3  and  6,  which  show  that  there  were  others 
besides  these.  The  subsequent  distinction  that  had  been  made,  was  the 
work  of  Ashpenaz  and  his  subordinate,  and  was  not  originally  required 
by  the  king. 

(19)  And  the  king  communed  with  them,  and  there  was  not  found,  among  them 
all,  the  like  to  Daniel,  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah  ;  and  they  stood  in  waiting 
before  the  king. 


SE?  ift,  there  was  not  found,  impers.,  §  134,  2.  —  tlsM  ,  -a  ,  out  of, 
here  =  among,  as  rendered  above.  The  t-  plainly  relates  to  the  whole 
company  of  Hebrew  lads,  as  mentioned  above.  —  3  the  like  to,  prep., 
see  §  151,  3.  f.  The  king,  by  his  own  personal  examination,  fixed  upon 
the  very  individuals  as  his  .personal  waiters,  whom  Providence  had  dis 
tinguished  by  peculiar  gifts  which  rendered  them  superior  to  the  other 
children. 

(20)  And  as  to  everything  [which  was]  matter  of  intelligent  wisdom,  concerning 
which  the  king  made  inquiry  of  them,  he  found  them  ten  times  superior  to  all  the 
saered  scribes  [and]  the  enchanters  who  were  in  all  his  kingdom. 

^>b  is  not  in  the  const,  here,  but  in  the  case  absolute  ;  for  the  const. 
would  demand  a  short  vowel,  bD  (Kol).  la'n  ,  etc.,  is  in  apposition  with  Va 
and  exegetical  of  it.  The  Heb.  omits,  as  very  often,  the  "CX  ,  which 
would  make  the  second  clause  a  relative  one,  and  idiomatically  prefers 
simple  apposition.  Lit.  the  second  clause  runs  thus  :  matter  of  wisdom 
of  intelligence  or  of  distinguishing.  But  rra:n  is  put  as  const,  before  ina^a  , 
while  the  latter  qualifies  the  former  by  taking  the  place  of  an  adjective, 
§  104,  1.  For  the  meaning  of  nasn  ,  see  in  v.  4  ;  and  tti^a  specifically 
applies  to  the  discerning  and  discretive  powers  of  the  mind,  i.  e.  to  those 
powers  which  make  distinctions  between  different  things,  and  thus  ar 
rive  at  accuracy  of  knowledge.  By  separating  these  two  words,  and 
putting  and  between  them,  (as  nearly  all  the  versions  do),  the  intensity 
of  the  description  here  is  destroyed  ;  for  the  writer  means  to  characterize 
the  highest  degree  of  acute  discernment  in  matters  abstruse  and  difficult. 
Trx  is  properly  the  Ace.  governed  by  djsa  ,  but  I  have  conformed  the 
translation  more  to  our  English  idiom,  by  introducing  a  preposition  be 
fore  it.  —  cx^^f  1  ,  with  a  Vav  consec.  before  an  after-clause  or  apodosis  ; 
Lex.  1.  e.  Gramm.  p.  238.  second  N.  B.  a.  The  }  might  be  rendered  so  ; 
but  our  idiom  rather  rejects  such  a  construction,  and  omits  any  particular 
sign  of  the  apodosis.  —  Ten  times,  niT)  =  parts,  portions,  quasi  handfuls. 


16  CHAP.  I.  20. 

This  we  express  by  the  word  times,  b?  lit.  above  =  superior  to.  — 
Sacred  scribes,  tPSE-inri ,  like  to  the  yQafifiateTs  of  the  N.  Test.  It 
seems  evident  that  the  word  is  from  win  stylus  or  pen,  with  the  forma 
tive  a-  ,  as  in  Bii^is  from  STIB  ,  and  the  like.  So  pen-men  would  be  a 
literal  translation.  It  designates,  however,  those  who  were  busied  with 
books  and  writing,  and  skilled  in  them  ;  and  designates  priests  or  sacred 
scribes,  because  literature  was  confined  almost  entirely  to  such.  To  de 
rive  it  from  E'nn  and  tnn  ,  or  to  go  to  the  Persian,  as  some  have  done 
(see  Lex.),  seems  to  be  far-fetched.  The  word  occurs  often  in  Gen.  and 
Ex.  (see  Lex.)  ;  and  therefore  a  Persian  origin  is  quite  improbable.  — 
ms^xri ,  the  enchanters,  asyndic,  i.  e.  without  any  1  (conjunction)  before 
it.  Is  it  in  apposition,  therefore,  with  the  preceding  word  ?  This  circum 
stance  looks  rather  like  it ;  but  a  comparison  of  the  usage  of  this  writer 
as  to  the  omission  of  "i ,  as  well  as  the  nature  of  the  case,  rather  leads  us 
to  doubt  in  respect  to  apposition,  comp.  5:  15,  and  also  2:  27,  45,  where 
some  four  or  five  different  nouns  are  grouped  together,  without  any  con 
junction  between  them.  Still,  apposition  might  be  admitted  there,  if 
Dan.  2:  2  did  not  decide  against  it,  for  there  the  two  words  plainly  belong 
to  two  different  classes.  See  on  2:  2. 

The  number  ten  which  is  associated  in  this  verse  with  M'^P  times  or 
portions,  is  in  unison  with  the  custom  of  the  Hebrews,  who  employed 
this  definite  number  in  cases  where  an  indefinite  number  not  inconsid 
erable  was  required.*  In  such  a  connection  as  in  our  text,  ten  is  found 
in  Gen.  3.1:  7,  41.  Num.  14:  22.  Neh.  4:  12.  Job.  19:  3.  The  reader, 
who  will  take  the  pains  to  examine  the  examples  throughout  (and  these 
are  not  all),  will  learn  that  the  number  ten  may  be  classed  with  three 
and  seven,  as  to  the  frequency  with  which  it  is  employed  by  the  sacred 
writers,  in  a  kind  of  symbolical  rather  than  literal  sense.  At  times  there 
may  be  difficulty  in  determining  the  question,  whether  ten  is  to  be  taken 
simply  in  a  numerical  way,  or  whether  it  is  only  a  symbol  of  a  moderate 
but  not  inconsiderable  number.  In  the  connection  above,  however,  as 
ten  is  riot  compared  with  any  greater  number,  but  by  implication  only 
with  a  unit,  it  means  an  excess  above  that  unit  which  is  large.  That 
the  ten  days  of  trial  mentioned  in  v.  12,  has  a  tacit  reference  to  the  cus 
tom  of  employing  ten  as  already  stated,  there  can  hardly  be  room  for 
doubt. 

*  See,  for  example,  Gen.  18:32.  24:  10,  22.  32:  15.  Ex.  26:  1.  27:  12.  Lev.  26: 
26.  Num.  11:  32.  29:  23.  Josh.  21:  5.  Judg.  6:  27.  17:  10.  20:  10.  Ruth  4:  2.  1  Sam. 
1:3.  17:  17.  25:5.  2  Sam.  18:  11.  19:  43.  1  Kings  7:  24,  27,  38.  11:  31.  14:  3.  2 
Kings  5:  5.  2  Chron.4:  7.  Neh.  11:  1.  Ecc.  7:  19.  Isa.  5:  10.  Dan.  7:  7.  Amos  5:  3. 
6:  9.  Zech.  8:  23.  Matt.  25:  1.  Luke  15:  8.  19:  13.  Rev.  12:3.  13:  1.  17:  3,  7,  12,  16- 


CHAP.  I.  21.  17 

(21)  And  Daniel  was  until  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  the  King. 
And  Daniel  was  —  what  ?  A  question  answered  differently  by  differ 
ent  critics.  One  class,  taking  Wi  as  a  verb  absolute,  translate  lived  or 
remained.  The  difficulty  with  this  interpretation  is,  that  rnn  to  be  nearly 
always  differs  from  rnn  to  live,  The  latter  is  opposed  to  n^ra  to  die ;  the 
former  to  "px  there  is  not ;  see  in  Acts  17:28,  Zapev  xal  xi,vov[*8&a 
xal  KG  IJLKV,  where  the  first  and  last  verbs  plainly  have  a  different  im 
port.  In  fact,  I  can  find  no  passage  where  rnri  is  employed  directly  in 
the  simple  sense  of  living.  It  is  indeed  sometimes  used  absolutely,  and 
not  as  a  mere  copula ;  in  which  case  it  means  simply  existed  or  came 
into  existence.  Gen.  1:3.  2:  5 ;  or  (with  a  little  variation)  was  made  or 
formed  =  came  into  existence,  as  in  Gen.  1:  6.  Isa.  66:  2,  and  so  yzyovl- 
vai  in  Heb.  11:  3.  In  very  many  cases,  with  a  little  more  variation,  it 
means  accidit,  it  came  to  pass,  happened,  etc.  =  the  xat  fywero  of  the 
N.  Test. ;  see  Lex.  But  neither  of  the  meanings  just  given  suit  the  case 
before  us.  Other  usual  meanings  of  n^tt  are  connected  with  it  as  a  cop 
ula,  and  serve  to  express  that  he  or  it  was  something,  or  was  for  some 
person  or  thing,  or  was  in  some  place  or  condition.  There  is  an  instance, 
however,  in  Jer.  1:  3,  where  ^ir^  is  employed  exactly  as  in  the  present 
case,  and  is  followed  by  iy  (until)  before  a  limitation  of  time,  as  here. 
The  case  in  Jeremiah  is  one  which  seems  quite  plain,  and  the  analogy 
between  that  case  and  the  present  seems  to  be  so  striking  as  to  make 
out  a  very  strong  probability,  if  not  a  certainty,  of  meaning  in  respect  to 
">r^l .  In  Jer.  1:  1,  2,  the  statement  is  made,  that  the  ivord  of  (he  Lord 
came  to  Jeremiah  in  the  13th  year  of  Josiah's  reign.  V.  3  plainly  de 
clares,  that  Jeremiah  continued  to  receive  the  word  of  the  Lord  until 
the  llth  year  of  Zedekiah's  reign  and  the  captivity  of  the  Jews.  But 
this  declaration  is  made,  as  in  Dan.  1:  21,  simply  by  *T\*\  prefixed  to  the 
verse,  after  which  follows  merely  a  designation  of  time.  Just  so  in  our 
text.  Of  course,  iJTil  has  respect  to  some  person  or  thing,  or  to  both, 
which  is  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse.  In  Jer.  1:  3,  the  reference 
is  to  the  prophet  and  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  before  mentioned,  so  that 
the  meaning  is  plain.  And  the  like  in  Dan.  1:  21.  The  preceding  con 
text  exhibits  Daniel  as  possessed  of  ha^a  n^ri  ten  times  more  than  that 
of  the  sacred  scribes  and  enchanters;  and  verse  17  attaches  to  his  wis 
dom  the  power  of  interpreting  dreams  and  visions.  V.  21,  then,  declares 
that  this  Daniel,  preeminent  for  wisdom  and  skill,  was,  or  rather  contin 
ued  to  be,  until  the  first  year  of  Cyrus.  Comp.  the  like  force  of  sari  in 
Acts  17:  28.  1  Cor.  7:  7,  26.  2  Cor.  13:  5.  The  history  of  Daniel  ex- 
"hibits  this.  Shortly  before  Cyrus'  reign,  we  find  him  in  presence  of 
Belshazzar,  interpreting  the  hand-writing  on  the  wall.  Under  Darius 

2* 


18  CHAP.  I.  21. 

the  Mecle,  he  was  made  head  of  the  princes,  "  because  an  excellent  spirit 
was  in  him,"  Dan.  6:  3.  It  appears,  indeed,  that  for  a  time  he  was  neg 
lected  by  the  Babylonish  king.  Dan.  5: 1 1 — 13.  But  the  "Tiv  before  us  has 
respect  more  to  the  qualities  of  Daniel,  than  to  the  constant  tenure  of  his 
court-offices.  In  this  way  the  meaning  seems  to  be  plain,  although  the 
idiom  is  not  a  usual  one.  The  case  in  Jer.  is  surely  plain ;  is  not  the 
present  one  equally  so  ?  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hezel,  and  Bleek,  explain 
thus :  "  Daniel  was  in  Babylon,  and  in  such  relations."  The  words  in 
italic  are  necessary,  in  their  view,  to  explain  the  Wi .  But  as  this  idea 
is  virtually  implied  in  the  whole  connection  of  the  sentence,  it  is  unne 
cessary  to  supply  it  otherwise.  I  need  only  add,  that  the  first  year  of  Cy 
rus  is  named,  because  then  the  Babylonish  monarchy  ceased,  and  of 
course  the  relations  of  Daniel  to  it ;  and  then  the  Jews  were  freed  from 
exile,  and  Daniel  survived  so  as  to  see  the  end  as  well  as  the  beginning 
of  it.  Hence  the  designation  of  it  in  our  text,  as  a  period  specially  to 
be  marked  in  respect  to  the  condition  and  the  hopes  of  Daniel.  It  is  as 
much  as  to  say :  '  Daniel,  as  conversant  with  matters  that  pertained  to 
wisdom  and  learning,  lived  to  see  the  joyful  day  of  Jewish  freedom. 
The  earliest  in  exile,  *  he  still  lived  to  see  the  end  of  it.'  Those  who  as 
sail  the  credit  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  have  not  failed  to  make  out  a  diffi 
culty  here.  First,  they  render  ^Ji^l  he  lived,  just  as  if  it  were  •'rni . 
Next,  they  allege  that  the  import  of  v.  21  is,  that  Daniel  lived  only  until 
the  first  year  of  Cyrus's  reign.  Lastly  they  assert,  that  G:  29,  which  de 
clares  that  "  Daniel  prospered  in  the  reign  of  Cyrus,"  is  a  contradiction 
of  1:  21.  The  first  assertion,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not  correct.  The 
second  is  palpably  without  ground.  In  the  case  of  Jeremiah,  to  whom 
the  word  of  the  Lord  is  said  to  have  come,  from  the  time  of  Josiah  to 
the  captivity,  we  are  certain,  from  the  book  itself,  that  he  frequently 
prophesied  after  this  period.  And  so  it  might  have  been  with  Daniel,  if 
he  lived  (as  he  did,  see  10:  1),  after  the  first  year  of  Cyrus's  reign.  A 
terminus  ad  quern  surely  does  not  exclude  all  beyond  it.  If  I  say  to  a 
friend :  "  Farewell  until  my  return  from  a  journey,"  I  do  not  mean  that 
I  wish  him  no  prosperity  after  this.  When  the  Messiah,  in  Ps.  110,  is 
bidden  to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God  until  his  enemies  are  made  his 
footstool,  the  meaning  is  not  that  his  seat  shall  then  be  vacated.  As  to 
6:  29,  Daniel  may  have  prospered  in  Cyrus's  reign,  even  in  case  he  died 
near  the  close  of  the  first  year;  which,  however,  did  not  happen,  10:  1. 
Nothing  can  be  made  out  of  these  objections. 


EXC.   I.   ALLEGED   ERROR  IN  DATES. 


19 


EXCURSUS  I. —  On  the  alleged  discrepancy  between  Daniel  1:  1  and  Jer. 
25:  1,  and  some  other  passages. 


The  charge  of  historical  incorrectness  against  the  writer  of  the  book  of 
Daniel,  rests  partly  upon  some  dates  of  time,  and  partly  upon  some  histori 
cal  occurrences.  I  shall  first  examine  the  allegation  of  error  in  respect  to 
the  designation  of  TIME. 

In  Dan.  1: 1  it  is  said,  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  came  up 
against  Jerusalem,  besieged  it,  took  Jehoiakim  captive,  and  rifled  the  tem 
ple  of  a  part  of  its  furniture,  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim.  In  Jer.  25:  1 
it  is  explicitly  said,  that  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign  was  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim's.  Moreover,  in  Jer.  46:  2  it  is  said  that  king 
Nebuchadnezzar  smote  Carchemish  on  the  Euphrates,  then  in  possession  of 
Pharaoh-Necho  king  of  Egypt,  in  the  same  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim.  Tak 
ing  all  these  passages  into  view,  it  is  alleged  that  the  writer  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  could  not  have  lived  in  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  when  the  true 
date  of  the  invasion  of  Palestine  by  that  king  must  necessarily  have  been 
well  known  ;  but  at  a  subsequent  period,  when  the  chronology  of  these 
events  was  more  obscure,  and  when  he  might  be  misled  by  erring  tradition. 
That  period  is  placed,  by  most  of  the  recent  critics  belonging  to  the  so- 
called  liberal  School,  near  to  the  close  of  the  Maccabaean  times,  with  the 
history  of  which,  as  they  aver,  the  book  of  Daniel  concludes. 

As  this  has  been,  of  late,  an  almost  uniform  assertion  among  critics  of 
the  new  School,  and  has  been  placed  in  the  front  rank  of  objections  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  it  becomes  necessary  to  give  it  an 
attentive  examination.  Lengerke  says  of  it,  in  his  recent  Commentary  on 
this  book,  that  "  all  attempts  to  remove  this  objection  have  to  the  present 
hour  been  frustrated.  .  .  .  Not  only  is  the  date  wrong,  but  the  deportation 
[of  captives]  under  Jehoiakim  remains  at  least  unproved ;"  p.  2  seq. 

The  documents  which  must  guide  our  inquiries,  are  a  fragment  of  Bero- 
sus  (preserved  by  Josephus),  and  several  brief  passages  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures.  These  are  all  the  historical  data  on  which  we  can  place  any  re 
liance.  All  subsequent  testimony  is  either  a  mere  repetition  of  these,  or  a 
constructive  exegesis  of  them,  or  if  not,  it  is  mere  conjecture.  In  respect 
to  the  original  documents,  we  have  evidently  the  same  right  of  interpreta 
tion  as  Abydenus,  Megasthenes,  Josephus,  Eusebius,  and  others  had.  The 
native  Greek  historians,  whose  works  are  now  extant,  make  no  mention  at 
all  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  consequently,  Josephus's  quotations  from  the  ori 
ental  writers,  and  the  historical  notices  comprised  in  the  Hebrew  Scrip 
tures,  are  all  on  which  we  can  place  any  dependance  as  legitimate  sources 
of  testimony.  These  consist  of  the  following  particulars. 


No.  I.  —  The  king  of  Egypt,  Pharaoh- 
Necho,  after  having  slain  Josiah,  arid  de 
posed  his  successor,  Jehoahaz,  made  Elia- 
kim  (surnamed  Jehoia/dm),  the  son  of 
Josiah,  king  over  the  Hebrews,  and  treat 
ed  him  as  a  tributary  vassal ;  2  Kings  23: 


29—37.  The  sacred  writer  then  proceeds 
thus,  in  2  Kings  24:  1 :  u  In  his  days  came 
up  Nebuchadnezzar,  king-  of  Babylon ;  and 
Jehoiakim  became  his  servant  three  years; 
then  he  turned  and  rebelled  against  him. 
(2)  And  Jehovah  sent  against  him  bands 


20  EXC.  I.  ALLEGED  ERROR  IN  DATES. 

of  the  Chaldces,  and  bands  of  Syria,  and  I.  19,  "When  his  father  Nabopolassar 
hands  of  Moab,  and  bands  of  the  sons  of ,  had  heard,  that  the  Satrap,  who  had  been 
Ammon ;  yea,  he  sent  them  against  Judah  appointed  over  Egypt  and  the  regions 
to  destroy  him ;  according  to  the  word  of  around  Coelo- Syria  and  Phenicia,  had  re- 
the  Lord  which  he  spoke  by  his  servants  belled,  not  being  able  himself  to  endure 
the  prophets.  !  hardships,  he  committed  to  his  son,  Ne- 

No.  II.  —  After  relating  events  previ- jbuchadnezzar,  then  in  the  vigor  of  life, 
ous  to  Jehoiakim's  reign,  as  in  the  book  certain  portions  of  his  forces,  and  sent 
of  Kings,  the  writer  thus  proceeds  in  2  them  against  him.  And  Nebuchadnez- 
Chron.  36:  6 :  "  Against  him  came  up  zar,  falling  in  with  the  rebel,  and  putting 
Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  his  forces  in  order,  gained  a  victory  over 
bound  him  in  fetters,  to  convey  him  to  him,  and  the  country  belonging  to  his 
Babylon.  ( 7 )  And  a  part  of  the  vessels  control  he  brought  under  his  own  domin- 
of  the  house  of  the  Lord  did  Nebuchad- ,  ion.  Now  it  came  to  pass,  that  Nabopo- 


nezzar  take  to  Babylon,  and  he  put  them 
in  his  temple  at  Babylon. 

No.  III.  — Jer.  25:1.  "  The  message 
which  was  to  Jeremiah,  concerning  all 
the  people  of  Judah,  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jchoiakim  the  son  of  Josiah  king  of  Ju 
dah  ;  the  same  was  the  first  year  of  Ne 
buchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon." 

No.  IV.  — Jer.  46:  1,  2.  "The  word  of 
the  Lord  .  .  .  against  Egypt,  against  the 


lassar  fell  sick  at  that  period,  and  died, 
having  reigned  twenty-one  years.  Not  long 
after,  having  learned  the  death  of  his  fa 
ther,  he  arranged  his  affairs  in  Egypt  and 
the  other  regions,  and  committed  the  cap 
tives  of  the  Jews,  the  Phenicians,  the  Syri 
ans,  and  the  nations  in  Egypt,  to  certain 
of  his  friends,  to  conduct  them  to  Baby 
lon,  with  the  most  weighty  part  of  his 


forces,  and  the  remainder  of  his  booty. 


weighty  parl 
linder  of  his 


army  of  Pharaoh-Neeho  king  of  Egypt,!  He  himself,  accompanied    by  very  few, 
which  was  by  the  river  Euphrates  in  Car-  went  to  Babylon    through    the    desert. 

*  •    i  i   •     i       -vT-i I,  _  J - ..     1    • -£    rni    __    A.!   ' ~~   1   • -.1 __Or?    • i   «  _i_ 


chemish,  which  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of 
Babylon  smote,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Je- 
hoiakim  king  of  Judah. 


Then  taking  upon  him  the  affairs  which 
had  been  managed  by  the  Chaldees,  and 
the  kingdom  which  had  been  preserved 


No.  V.  —  Dan.  1:   1,  2.    "In  the  third \ for  him  by  their  leader,  becoming  master 
year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  king  oi\oflhe  whole  (oAo/c/U/poi))  of  his  father's  do- 
Judah,  came    Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of 
Babylon,  to  Jerusalem,  and  besieged  it. 
And  the  Lord  gave  into  his  hand  Jehoia 
kim,  king  of  Judah,  and  a  part  of  the  ves 
sels  of  the  house  of  God ;  and  he  brought 
them  to  the  land  of  Shinar,  to  the  house 
of  his  God,  and  the  vessels  did  he  bring 
into  the  treasure-house  of  his  God." 

No.  VI.  —  BEROSUS,  as  quoted  by  Jo- 
sephus.  Antiq.  X.  11.  1,  also  Contra  Ap. 


,  he  assigned  to  the  cap 
tives  who  had  arrived,  colonial  dwelling- 
places  in  the  most  suitable  regions  of  Ba 
bylon,"  etc.  The  passage  goes  on  to 
show  how  Nebuchadnezzar  used  a  part  of 


the  spoils  as  uvatff/y/ara,  i.  e.  votive  offer 
ings,  in  the  temples  of  his  gods,  and  the 
rest,  in  building  and  adorning  the  city  of 
Babylon. 


Preceding  this  passage,  as  quoted  from  Berosus  (Cont.  Apion.  I.  19),  Jo- 
sephus  gives  a  summary  of  the  history  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  exhibited  by 
the  Chaldean  historian.  In  this  summary  he  says,  that  Berosus  has  related, 
"  how  Nabopolassar  sent  his  son.  Nebuchadnezzar,  against  Egypt  and 
against  our  land  [Palestine],  with  a  large  force  (|UETW  nollrig  dvvafisws*), 
who  subdued  them,  burned  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and,  transplanting 
the  great  mass  of  the  people,  carried  them  away  to  Babylon."  In  a  part  of 
this  summary,  he  seems  to  quote  the  words  of  Berosus,  and  represents  him 
as  saying,  that  "  the  Babylonian  conquered  Egypt,  Syria,  Phenicia  and 
Arabia,  and  exceeded  in  achievements  all  of  the  Chaldean  and  Babylonian 
kings,  who  had  reigned  before  him." 

We  have  now  before  us  all  the  documents  on  which  any  reliance  can  be 
safely  placed.  On  these  I  would  make  a  few  remarks  which  may  assist  our 
further  inquiries,  (a)  From  a  survey  of  these  documents  it  is  plain,  at  first 
sight,  that  no  one  of  them  is  anything  more  than  a  mere  summary  sketch  of 
Jehoiakim's  reign  ;  and  so  of  Nebuchadnezzar's.  The  particulars  of  events, 


EXC.   I.    ALLEGED    ERROR   IN   DATES. 

and  even  the  order  of  them,  in  some  respects,  are  not  specifi 
Thus  in  No.  I.,  two  invasions  of  Nebuchadnezzar  are  made  certain  ;  but  no 
particular  time  of  either  is  specified.  In  number  II.  only  one  (probably 
the  final)  invasion  appears  to  be  mentioned.  In  Berosus,  there  is  a  still 
more  rapid  coup  d'  oeil  of  events,  without  any  effort  to  narrate  particulars, 
much  less  to  make  out  dates.  (&)  We  are,  therefore,  at  liberty  to  supply 
the  omissions  of  one  account,  by  that  which  another  has  furnished.  An  ar 
gument  against  more  than  one  invasion,  in  the  time  of  Jehoiakim,  drawn 
from  the  fact  that  no  more  than  one  is  mentioned  in  2  Chronicles,  would 
amount  to  nothing ;  for  it  need  not  be  again  proved,  that  the  argumentum 
a  s'dentio  is  in  such  cases  of  no  value.  So  an  argument  drawn  from  the 
silence  of  Berosus  as  to  more  than  one  invasion  of  Palestine  by  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  would  prove  nothing  against  the  united  testimony  of  Kings,  Jere 
miah,  and  Daniel,  that  there  was  more  than  one.  (c)  It  follows,  that  we 
are  at  liberty  to  make  out  probabilities  of  time  and  order  of  succession  in 
respect  to  events,  from  circumstances  that  are  narrated,  where  the  writers 
have  omitted  formally  to  make  out  these  in  their  narrations.  This,  how 
ever,  should  always  be  clone  with  caution,  and  we  should  keep  strictly 
within  the  bounds  of  probability. 

In  respect  to  the  main  subject  now  before  us  I  would  remark,  that  there 
are  some  points  so  well  settled,  and  of  such  controlling  influence,  that  no 
thing  can  be  safely  admitted  which  is  inconsistent  with  them.  (1)  It  is 
now  a  matter  of  nearly  universal  agreement,  that  Nabopolassar,  the  father 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  union  with  the  Median  king  Astyages,  destroyed 
the  Assyrian  empire,  and  began  his  independent  reign  in  Babylon,  in  625 
B.  C.  (2)  It  seems  to  be  certain,  from  the  testimony  of  Berosus  (No.  VI. 
above)  and  Syncellus,  that  he  reigned  twenty-one  years.  Of  course  his 
death  was  near  the  close  of  605  B.  C.,  or  at  the  beginning  of  604.  At  this 
period,  then,  Nebuchadnezzar  by  inheritance  became  sole  king  of  Babylon. 
(3)  Previously  to  this  period,  Nebuchadnezzar  had  invaded  and  subdued 
Carchemish,  and  overrun  and  brought  under  subjection  to  himself  Syria, 
Palestine,  Moab,  the  country  of  the  Ammonites,  Phenicia,  and  lower 
Egypt.  This  is  clear  from  a  comparison  of  No.  I.  and  No.  VI.  with  its  se 
quel  above.  When  these  achievements  and  conquests  were  completed, 
Nebuchadnezzar  received  tidings  of  his  father's  death,  hastened  to  Baby 
lon,  and  left  the  captives  and  the  booty  to  be  forwarded  by  his  subordinate 
officers  ;  No.  VI.  above.  These  are  facts  which  we  must  either  admit,  or 
else  renounce  the  credit  of  historical  testimony  which  we  are  unable  fairly 
to  impeach. 

The  question  then,  whether  Nebuchadnezzar  came  into  the  regions  of 
hither  Asia  before  604  B.  C.,  is  settled.  But  —  how  long  before  V  Long 
enough,  at  any  rate,  to  overrun  and  subdue  all  these  countries.  Less  than 
some  two  years  for  such  achievements,  no  one  who  looks  at  the  extent  of 
those  countries,  and  knows  the  slowness  with  which  armies  formerly  moved 
in  the  East,  will  venture  to  fix  upon.  The  book  of  Daniel  (1:  1,  2)  says, 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  came  up  and  besieged  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim,  i.  e.  in  607.  That  this  was  near  the  close  of  that  third  year, 
would  seem  probable  from  two  circumstances ;  first,  the  fast  kept  by  Je 
hoiakim  and  his  people,  on  the  ninth  month  of  the  fifth  year  of  this  king, 
i.  e.  Dec.  605.  This  was  no  legal  or  ritual  fast,  (for  none  belonged  to  this 


22  EXC.  I.  ALLEGED  ERROR  IN  DATES. 

period),  but  one  either  commemorative  of  some  great  evil,  e.  g.  the  capture 
of  the  city  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  (comp.  Zech.  '8:  19,  where  four  fasts  of  a 
like  kind  are  specified)  ;  or  anticipative  of  some  great  and  dangerous 
struggle,  e.  g.  Jehoiakim's  rebellion  against  Nebuchadnezzar.  Moreover, 
as  Nebuchadnezzar  is  called  king,  while  on  this  expedition,  both  in  Daniel, 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  and  Jeremiah,  and  as  we  know  (see  Nos.  III.  IV.), 
that  Jehoiakim's  fourth  year  corresponded  with  the  first  year  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  as  viewed  by  the  Hebrews,  it  would  seem  to  follow  of  course,  allow 
ing  the  historical  verity  of  Daniel,  that  the  invasion  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
must  have  been  late  in  607.  If  so,  then  of  course  the  greater  part  of  his 
first  year,  as  counted  by  the  Hebrews,  corresponded  to  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim,  as  Nos.  III.  IV.  declare.  Later  than  the  time  which  Daniel 
designates,  Nebuchadnezzar's  expedition  could  not  well  have  been,  if  we 
admit  the  great  extent  of  his  conquests  already  made  at,  or  a  little  before, 
-  the  beginning  of  604.  Cyrus  and  Cyaxares  were  about  ten  years  in  sub 
duing  Asia  Minor  ;  could  Nebuchadnezzar  have  overrun  all  hither  Asia 
and  Egypt  in  less  than  two  ?  All  those  then,  who,  like  Lengerke,  Winer, 
etc.,  make  the  fourth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  eighth  of  Jehoia 
kim,  i.  e.  602  or  601,  to  be  the  time  when  the  king  of  Babylon  first  invaded 
Palestine,  are  obliged  to  dishonor  the  credit  of  Berosus,  who  (No.  VI.) 
says,  in  so  many  words,  that  '  when  Nebuchadnezzar  heard  of  his  father's 
death,  he  left  the  spoil  and  the  captive  Jews,  Syrians,  Phenicians  and 
Egyptians,  to  be  conducted  to  Babylon  by  his  officers.'  The  same  is  also 
asserted  by  Alexander  Polyhistor,  Euseb.  Chron.  Arm.  I.  p.  45.  All  agree 
that  this  must  have  been  in  604 ;  and  scarcely  a  doubt  can  remain,  that  it 
was  near  the  commencement  of  this  year.  Lengerke  says,  in  respect  to 
what  Berosus  asserts,  that  "  it  may  appear  to  be  doubtful ;"  p.  6.  He  refers 
to  Jer.  29:  10,  comp.  v.  2,  for  proof  that  the  exile  of  Jechoniah  was  the 
first  deportation  of  Jews  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  I  can  find  no  proof  of 
such  a  nature  there.  The  simple  truth  is,  that  events  are  everywhere  re 
lated,  in  respect  to  Jehoiakim's  reign,  without  any  dates  of  time,  with  the 
exception  of  Dan.  1:  1,  2.  But  still,  these  events  are  plainly  such  as  to 
show  the  entire  probability  of  what  is  declared  by  Daniel. 

"But  Nebuchadnezzar  took  Carchemish  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim 
(No.  IV.  above) ;  how  could  he  do  this,  and  yet  send  Daniel  and  his  com 
peers  into  exile,  in  the  third  year  of  the  same  Jehoiakim  ?" 

One  may  well  reply,  that  there  is  no  impossibility,  or  even  improbability, 
in  this.  Where  is  the  passage  of  history  to  show  that  Nebuchadnezzar  did 
not  besiege  and  take  Jerusalem,  before  he  went  against  Carchemish  ? 
Babylon,  Carchemish,  and  Jerusalem,  are  at  the  extreme  points  of  a  trian 
gle,  the  shortest  side  of  which  is  indeed  the  distance  from  Babylon  to  Car 
chemish.  Why  then  did  not  Nebuchadnezzar  go  directly  from  Babylon  to 
Carchemish  ?  The  probable  answer  seems  to  me  not  to  be  difficult.  Je 
hoiakim  was  placed  on  the  throne  by  Pharaoh  Necho,  and  consequently 
was  his  hearty  ally  and  tributary.  Nebuchadnezzar,  by  marching  first 
against  him,  and  then  subduing  all  the  countries  under  Egyptian  sway, 
through  which  he  passed  on  his  march  to  Carchemish,  avoided  the  possi 
bility  of  aid  from  Egypt  being  given  to  the  city  in  question,  or  from  the 
allies  of  Egypt.  Carchemish  was  the  strongest  place  in  all  that  region ; 
aud  such  a  plan  showed  the  expertness  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  a  warrior. 


EXC.  I.  ALLEGED  ERROR  IN  DATES.  23 

The  whole  course  of  events,  in  this  case,  certainly  looks  as  if  the  assertion 
in  Dan.  1:  1,  2,  were  true. 

"  But  how  could  Jeremiah,  then,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  (25:  1 
seq.),  threaten  an  invasion  of  the  Chaldees,  and  seventy  years  of  exile  ? 
The  exile,  according  to  this  view,  had  already  begun."  But  to  this  ques 
tion  one  may  reply,  that  Nebuchadnezzar's  first  work,  viz.  the  subjection 
of  Jehoiakim  and  the  making  of  him  a  tributary,  had  indeed  already  been 
done  ;  but  all  of  the  work  which  Nebuchadnezzar  was  to  perform,  was  not 
yet  completed.  In  his  victorious  march  from  Carchemish,  where  he  had 
been  successful,  through  all  the  countries  of  hither  Asia  and  Lower  Egypt, 
and  of  course  through  Palestine,  he  was  still  to  collect  more  booty,  and  to 
carry  away  such  and  so  many  captives  as  he  thought  would  effectually  pre 
vent  insurrection  after  his  departure.  It  is  not  probable  that  he  sent  away 
many  captives  to  Babylon,  immediately  on  his  first  capture  of  Jerusalem. 
He  could  not  then  spare  the  troops  necessary  for  such  an  escort  as  was  re 
quired  to  do  this.  In  all  probability,  therefore,  he  contented  himself  with 
sending  away  a  sufficient  number  of  hostages,  belonging  to  the  princes  and 
nobles,  to  secure  the  fidelity  of  Jehoiakim.  The  book  of  Daniel  (1:  1 — 3) 
merely  avers,  that  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  a  part  of  the  vessels  of 
the  temple,  and  some  of  the  king's  seed  and  of  the  princes,  were  sent  to 
Babylon.  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  or  probable  than  this,  under 
such  circumstances.  One  has  only  to  call  to  mind,  that  hostages,  and  those 
of  princely  descent,  were  usually  demanded  by  conquerors,  where  want  of 
fidelity  in  the  subdued  was  suspected  ;  and  also,  that  the  booty  of  gold  and 
silver  was  one  main  object,  in  all  such  expeditions  as  that  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar's.  Hence,  in  Jer.  52:  27 — 30,  no  mention  is  made  of  those  first 
hostages  as  exiles ;  first,  because  they  were  few  in  number,  and  secondly, 
because  their  condition  was  different  from  that  of  ordinary  exiles.  When 
we  find  Jeremiah,  therefore,  in  25:  1 — 11,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim, 
threatening  subjugation  and  exile  to  the  Jews,  it  cannot  reasonably  be 
doubted  that  he  did  so,  because  Jehoiakim,  the  former  ally  of  Egypt,  and 
who  moreover  had  been  set  on  his  throne  by  the  Egyptian  king,  was  medi 
tating  revolt.  Nebuchadnezzar's  success  at  Carchemish  was  probably  as 
yet  unknown  in  Judea.  Jehoiakim,  therefore,  hoped  for  a  different  result, 
and  was  ready  to  join  his  former  master,  in  case  of  his  success.  To  pre 
vent  this  catastrophe,  Jeremiah  uttered  the  comminations  of  chap.  25: 
1 — 11.  And  that  Jehoiakim's  intentions  were  known  to  Nebuchadnezzar, 
seems  quite  probable  from  the  treatment  which,  according  to  Berosus,  the 
Jews  experienced  at  the  close  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  expedition,  viz.  the  de 
portation  of  Hebrew  captives.  Still,  as  this  class  of  exiles  is  not  particular 
ized  in  Jer.  52:  27 — 30,  they  probably  consisted  mostly  of  such  as  might 
come  under  the  denomination  of  hostages,  i.  e.  they  belonged  to  the  more 
wealthy  and  influential  families. 

That  all  which  has  been  said  of  the  disposition  of  Jehoiakim  to  rebel,  is 
true,  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  not  long  after  this  period,  as 
soon  as  Nebuchadnezzar  had  gone  to  Babylon  and  become  stationary  there, 
i.  e.  probably  about  the  end  of  604,  Jehoiakim  did  actually  rebel,  and 
throw  off  his  allegiance  to  Babylon.  The  king  of  Babylon,  however,  was 
so  intent  on  beautifying  his  capital  and  his  temples,  and  thus  expending 
the  immense  wealth  which  he  had  collected  in  his  predatory  incursions 


24  EXC.  I.  ALLEGED  ERROR  IN  DATES. 

(Berosus  in  Jos.  Cont.  Ap.  I.  19),  that  he  did  not  immediately  undertake 
to  chastise  the  Jewish  king.  But  at  the  close  of  600  B.  C.,  or  early  in  599, 
he  again  marched  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  inflicted  the  penalty  that  was  usual 
in  cases  of  revolt. 

Lengerke  and  others  assert,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  invade  Judea 
again,  during  the  life  of  Jehoiakim,  and  that  this  king  died  and  was  buried 
in  peace,  contrary  to  the  threats  of  Jeremiah,  22:  19,  and  36:  30,  viz.  that 
he  should  be  destroyed  by  violence,  and  his  dead  body  be  cast  out  un- 
buried.  The  appeal  for  proof  of  this  is  to  2  Kings  24:  6,  which  states,  that 
"  Jehoiakim  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  that  Jehoiakim  his  son  reigned  in  his 
stead."  Lengerke  (p.  7)  avers,  that  the  expression  slept  or  rested  with  his 
fathers  means,  always  and  only,  that  "  the  person  in  question  descended  in 
quiet  to  the  common  grave  of  his  fathers."  Surely  an  entire  mistake  !  That 
33^  of  itself  merely  designates  the  death  of  an  individual,  without  deter 
mining  the  fact  whether  it  was  peaceful  or  violent,  is  clear  enough  from 
Hebrew  usage.  In  almost  every  narration  respecting  the  death  of  a  king, 
either  in  the  book  of  Kings  or  Chronicles,  it  is  said  of  him,  that  he  slept 
with  his  fathers.  But  that  this  has  no  concern  with  indicating  his  peaceful 
burial,  is  quite  certain  from  the  fact,  that  in  nearly  every  case  of  this  na 
ture,  the  burial  of  the  king  is  the  subject  of  a  separate  mention,  showing  of 
course  that  this  is  not  involved  or  implied  in  the  first  expression.  Nor  does 
S3tti  (slept)  even  involve  the  idea  of  a  peaceful  death ;  for  it  is  said  of 
Ahab,  who  perished  of  wounds  received  in  battle,  that  "  he  slept  with  his 
fathers,"  1  Kings  24:  40.  In  v.  36  is  the  equivalent  expression :  So  the 
king  died ;  and  it  is  then  added  :  "  They  buried  him  in  Samaria."  In  the 
same  way  M^  alone  is  used  for  death,  and  mostly  for  the  designation  of 
violent  death^  in  Isa.  14:  8,  17.  43:  17.  Job  3:  13^  20:  11.  21:  26.  Not  a 
word  is  said  in  2  Kings  24:  6,  of  Jehoiakim's  burial ;  and  of  course  there  is 
nothing  there  to  show  that  Jeremiah,  in  declaring  that  he  should  perish 
unburied,  had  predicted  what  proved  to  be  untrue.  On  the  other  hand ; 
what  are  we  to  make  of  "h^axrf? ,  to  destroy  him  (i.  e.  Jehoiakim,  as  Len 
gerke  himself  (p.  6)  concedes),  in  2  Kings  24:  2  ?  And  what  of  2  Chron. 
36:  6,  which  says  that  the  king  of  Babylon  bound  Jehoiakim  in  fetters  to 
carry  him  to  Babylon,  but  makes  no  mention  at  all  of  his  being  actually 
sent  thither  ?  That  Jeremiah  has  not  given  an  account  of  the  fulfilment 
of  his  own  prediction  respecting  Jehoiakim,  is  not  strange,  unless  the  prin 
ciple  is  to  be  assumed,  that  prophets  are  obligated  to  write  full  and  regular 
history,  as  well  as  prediction.  I  might  even  argue  in  favor  of  the  fulfilment 
of  the  prediction,  from  the  silence  of  the  prophet.  It  was  an  event  so  well 
known,  one  might  say  with  probability,  that  a  special  record  of  it  was  not 
needed  on  his  part.  Yet  I  think  the  books  of  Chronicles  and  of  Kings,  as 
cited  above,  have  impliedly  recorded  the  event  in  question.  Still  more  ex 
press  do  I  find,  with  Grotius,  the  recognition  of  it  in  Ezek.  19:  9.  Here, 
the  preceding  context  describes  the  reign  and  fate  of  Jehoahaz  or  Shallum ; 
comp.  2  Kings  23:  31 — 33.  Then  the  prophet  comes,  in  his  parable,  to  the 
successor  of  Shallum,  viz.  Jehoiakim  (in  case  he  means  the  immediate  suc 
cessor),  and  he  says  of  him,  that  "the  nations  set  against  him  .  .  .  and  he 
was  taken  in  their  pit,  and  they  put  him  in  ward  in  chains,  and  brought 
him  to  the  king  of  Babylon  :  they  brought  him  into  holds,  that  his  voice 
should  no  more  be  heard  upon  the  mountains  of  Israel."  To  interpret  all 


EXC.  I.  ALLEGED  ERROR  IN  DATES.  25 

this  of  Jechoniah,  as  Rosenmiiller,  Lengerke,  and  others  have  done,  seems 
to  me  very  incongruous.  The  prophet  says  of  this  lion,  that  "  he  went  up 
and  down  among  the  lions  .  .  .  learned  to  catch  prey,  and  devoured  men ; 
and  he  knew  their  desolate  places,  and  laid  waste  their  cities,  and  the  land 
was  desolate,  and  the  fulness  thereof,  by  reason  of  his  roaring."  All  this 
now,  of  a  boy  eight  years  old,  according  to  2  Chron.  36:  9,  and  according 
to  2  Kings  24:  8,  only  eighteen;  and  of  a  child,  moreover,  who,  as  both 
records  aver,  reigned  only  about  three  months  !  A  most  extravagant  para 
ble  would  Ezekiel  seem  to  have  written,  if  all  this  is  to  be  predicated  of 
such  a  child,  whether  aged  eight  or  eighteen,  and  of  only  a  three  months' 
reign. 

There  is  indeed  a  difficulty,  arising  from  the  exti*eme  brevity  of  the 
sacred  writers,  in  finding  out  the  particulars  in  the  history  of  the  closing 
part  of  Jehoiakim's  reign.  But  certain  it  is,  that  nothing  against  the  sup 
position  that  he  died  a  violent  death,  and  was  left  unburied,  can  be  made 
out  from  what  is  recorded.  Would  Jeremiah  have  left  his  predictions 
standing  as  they  do  in  his  prophecy,  if  they  had  not  been  fulfilled  ?  Len 
gerke  intimates,  that  the  peaceful  accession  of  Jehoiachin  to  his  father's 
throne,  shows  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  not  in  Palestine,  at  the  time  of 
Jehoiakim's  death.  But  if  Nebuchadnezzar  had  already  chastised  Jehoia- 
kim  on  account  of  his  rebellion,  and  put  him  into  fetters,  in  which  he  died 
through  hard  usage  or  violence,  may  he  not  have  ceded  to  Jehoiachin  the 
throne  of  Judea,  in  consequence  of  renewed  and  solemn  stipulations  to 
become  his  vassal  ?  And  specially  as  he  was  so  young,  that  little  was  to 
be  feared  from  him  ?  I  see  nothing  of  the  impossible,  or  even  of  the  im 
probable,  in  all  this.  The  fact  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  very  suspicions 
of  Jehoiachin,  is  clear  from  the  circumstance,  that  after  only  three  months, 
he  returned  with  his  army,  and  carried  off  that  king  and  many  of  his  sub 
jects,  into  exile  at  Babylon.  The  phrase  ft3Efrt  rnrrrb  ,  in  2  Chron.  36: 
10,  indicates  something  more,  in  my  apprehension,  than  has  been  usually 
noticed  by  commentators.  In  all  probability,  this  return  or  turning  of  the  year 
means  the  Spring  of  the  year,  when  kings  were  wont  to  go  out  on  military 
expeditions.  But  still  the  word  year  here  plainly  stands  related  to  some 
other  period  of  time,  from  which  it  is  reckoned.  And  what  can  this  be,  ex 
cept  the  antecedent  period  when  Jehoiakim  was  deposed  and  slain  V  If 
this  were  done  in  the  autumn,  and  Jehoiachin  made  king  either  by  Nebu 
chadnezzar  himself,  or  by  the  people  rebelling  against  Babylon  after  his 
departure,  he  might  reign  during  the  three  winter  months,  and  in  the 
spring  of  the  year  be  attacked  and  carried  into  exile  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 
No  doubt  this  conqueror  had  large  standing  garrisons,  in  all  the  conquered 
countries,  ready  to  act  at  short  warning.  Hence  the  shortness  of  the  time, 
between  the  first  and  second  invasion  at  this  period,  according  to  the  state 
ment  made  above. 

That  I  have  reasoned  correctly  in  regard  to  the  mere  summary  or  gene 
ric  accounts  of  Jehoiakim's  reign,  both  in  the  sacred  records  and  in  Berosus, 
I  must  believe  no  one  will  deny  who  takes  due  pains  minutely  to  examine 
them.  It  follows  of  course,  unless  the  credibility  of  these  historians  can  be 
reasonably  impeached,  that  the  omission  of  particulars  by  any  one  of  them, 
is  no  argument  against  the  verity  of  another  who  does  state  some  particulars. 
This  is  notably  illustrated  by  Jer.  52:  28,  29.  In  v.  28  it  is  stated,  that  Nebu- 

3 


26  EXC.  I.  ALLEGED  ERROR  IN  DATES. 

chadnezzar  carried  away  captive  in  his  seventh  year,  3023  persons.  In  2  K. 
24:  12,  it  is  stated,  that  Jehoiachin  and  his  court  gave  themselves  up  to  Nebu 
chadnezzar  in  the  eighth  year  of  his  reign,  who  carried  him  away  to  Baby 
lon,  with  10,000  captives  and  all  the  craftsmen  and  smiths,  v.  14.  In  Jer., 
then,  the  statement  refers  to  what  was  done  one  year  (i.  e.  in  599)  be 
fore  that  took  place  which  is  related  in  the  book  of  Kings.  Both  the  time 
and  the  number  of  exiles  mentioned  in  the  two  passages,  are  discrepant; 
and  consequently  we  may  regard  this  circumstance  as  heightening  the 
probability  of  two  invasions,  as  stated  above,  which  took  place  within  a 
small  period  of  time.  Again,  in  Jer.  52:  29  it  is  stated,  that  Nebuchadnez 
zar,  in  his  eighteenth  year,  carried  away  captive  832  persons.  In  2  K.  25: 
3 — 10,  it  is  declared  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  his  nineteenth  year,  took  Jeru 
salem,  burned  the  temple,  and  carried  away  captive  all  except  the  poor  of 
the  land  (v.  12).  How  many  were  the  captives,  is  not  stated  ;  but  there 
must  have  been  a  great  many  thousands.  The  same  thing  is  repeated  in  Jer. 
52:  12—16.  Here  then  (in  52:  29)  is  a  statement  of  deportation,  in  a  dif 
ferent  year  and  in  very  different  numbers  from  what  is  stated  or  implied  in 
the  book  of  Kings.  Jer.  52:  29  seems  evidently  to  relate  to  captives  sent 
away  one  year  before  the  siege  was  completed  :  for  it  lasted  some  twenty 
months.  Then,  again,  there  is  a  third  deportation  mentioned  in  Jer.  52:  30, 
in  the  twenty-third  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  ;  of  which  we  have  no  other 
account.  Who  will  venture  now  to  say,  that  the  books  of  Jer.  and  of  Kino-g 
are  at  variance,  or  rather,  that  they  are  contradictory,  in  regard  to  the  de 
portation  of  exiles  ?  Both  may  be  regarded  as  true,  without  doing  the  least 
violence  to  probability. 

"  But  both  Daniel  and  Jeremiah  call  Nebuchadnezzar  king,  some  two  or 
more  years  before  he  was  king.  How  can  such  a  mistake  be  accounted  for  ?" 

Easily,  I  would  say  ;  or  rather,  I  would  deny  that  there  is  any  real  error 
in  the  Jewish  historians  or  prophets,  with  regard  to  this  matter.  Of  the  fa 
ther  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  viz.  Nabopolassar,  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  know 
nothing,  Nebuchadnezzar  was  generalissimo  of  the  Chaldean  invading 
army.  Before  he  left  the  country  of  Palestine,  in  order  to  return  to  Baby 
lon,  his  father  had  died,  and  he  had  become  actual  and  sole  king.  The 
books  of  Daniel  and  Jeremiah,  written  some  years  afterwards,  and  also  the 
books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles,  call  him  by  the  name  which  he  had  long 
and  universally  borne.  In  the  narrations  of  Jeremiah  and  Daniel,  and  also 
of  the  other  books  named,  the  writers  all  give  him  the  title  of  king,  which 
was  so  familiar  to  them  all.  The  same  thing  is  every  day  practised,  even 
at  the  present  time.  We  speak  of  Alexander  the  Great,  of  the  emperor  Au 
gustus,  of  the  emperor  Napoleon,  etc.,  as  having  done  or  said  this  and  that,  even 
when  we  are  relating,  in  a  popular  way,  the  things  which  took  place  before 
the  sovereignty  of  these  men  actually  existed.  The  object  of  the  sacred 
historians  is  mainly  to  designate  the  leading  individual  who  achieved  this 
or  that,  not  to  show  in  particular  how  and  when  he  entered  on  his  highest 
office.  The  Hebrews,  who  knew  Nebuchadnezzar  as  the  leader  of  the  Chal 
dean  army  and  also  as  king,  before  he  had  actually  ended  the  expedition 
against  them  in  which  he  was  first  engaged,  would  very  naturally  of  course 
speak  of  him  as  a  king,  when  he  first  invaded  Judea.  We  may  easily  con 
cede,  that  he  is  anticipatively  so  called  ;  for  the  usage  is  too  common  to  be 
either  a  matter  of  offence  or  of  stumbling.  It  cannot  fairly  be  put  to  the 
ccount  of  error  or  mistake. 


EXC.  I.  ALLEGED  ERROR  IN  DATES.  27 

I  do  not  feel,  therefore,  that  we  need  to  resort,  as  many  writers  have 
done,  to  the  expedient  of  showing  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  constituted  by 
his  father  a  joint  partner  with  him  of  the  throne  of  Babylon,  before  he  set 
out  on  the  celebrated  expedition  against  hither  Asia,  which  established  an 
extensive  Babylonish  empire.  Yet  this  partnership  is,  after  all,  far  from 
being  improbable.  Nabopolassar  was  so  enfeebled  as  to  be  unable  to  lead 
the  invading  army.  Berosus  says  of  him  :  •ffV(nrlff(xg  TM  vlu>  Nu3ov%odvoa6- 
(>i>),  OVTL  Eft  iv  rjkixux,  fttQi]  TIVU  TIJQ  (U'ropfMf,  t$»Hff*ifHt9  en  ttvivv,  v..  i.  L 
Jos.  cont.  Ap.  1. 19.  But  £tf«rpM*$  does  not  here  mean  regal  power,  (as  has 
been  maintained),  but  military  force.  This  seems  plain  from  a  preceding 
declaration,  in  which  Berosus  states  that  "  Nabopolassar  sent  his  son  (Nebu 
chadnezzar)  inl  rttv  4ft*t£ftt9  y>iv  —  (against  Palestine)  .  .  .  finu  nvl^q 
dvv(Xjjfh)g,  i.  e.  with  a  large  military  force."  But  there  is  another  passage  in 
Berosus,  which  seems  more  probably  to  favor  the  idea  of  copartnership  in 
the  throne,  at  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  expedition.  After  the  war  is 
finished,  Nebuchadnezzar  returns,  and  is  formally  installed  by  the  Magi  as 
sole  and  supreme  king.  Berosus  says  of  him :  "  Jfv^ititrric  f|  oAoxAj/'oou  TJJJS 
7iaTyiyJi$  <io/'%-,  i.  e.  becoming  supreme  over  the  whole  of  his  father's  domain." 
Is  there  not  a  natural  implication  here,  that  before  this  he  was  in  part  a 
*VQIO$  ?  So  Hitzig  concedes,  (Begriffder  Kritik,  p.  186),  and  states  ex 
pressly  that  Nebuchadnezzar's  father  made  him  co-regent,  before  the  battle 
at  Carchemish.  Knobel  (Prophetism.  II.  p.  226)  also  states  this  as  probable. 
The  like  do  many  others  ;  but  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  make  this  a  point 
of  any  moment.  The  various  sacred  writers  can  be  harmonized  with  each 
other,  and  with  probable  facts,  independently  of  this  circumstance.  But 
still,  it  would  be  an  additional  reason  for  the  Hebrew  usage,  in  regard  to  the 
appellative  king  as  applied  to  Nebuchadnezzar  previously  to  his  father's 
death,  that  he  was  co-regent  with  his  father,  from  the  time  that  he  entered 
on  his  first  Palestine  expedition.  The  contrary  of  this  cannot  be  shown. 
That  Berosus,  a  Babylonian,  should  count  dominion  as  belonging  to  Nabo 
polassar  until  his  death,  seems  to  be  a  matter  of  course,  for  such  dominion 
was  matter  of  fact.  That  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  appointed  heir,  then  ob 
tained  his  father's  domain  or  dominion  (u^ij^),  was  also  a  matter  of  course  ; 
but  that  he  then  obtained  it  «|  oAoxA?joou,  would  seem  to  imply  what  has 
been  stated  above.  Be  all  this  however  as  it  may,  it  seems  that  all  the  He 
brew  writers,  in  Kings,  Chronicles,  Jeremiah,  and  Daniel,  are  uniform  in 
regard  to  the  appellative  in  question.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  state 
of  actual  facts,  it  is  a  sufficient  vindication  of  the  Hebrew  historians  and 
prophets,  that  they  have  followed  the  usage  of  their  country  in  regard  to 
this  matter.  If  they  had  been  writing  the  particular  history  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar's  life  and  reign,  the  matter  might  then  be  viewed  in  a  different  light, 
in  case  a  co-regency  never  actually  took  place. 

But  we  are  met,  in  regard  to  our  views  of  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
frst  invasion,  by  the  allegation  of  Lengerke,  Winer,  and  others,  that  in  that 
expedition  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  overrun  Judea,  nor  send  away  any 
captives  from  that  country.  To  confirm  this,  they  appeal  to  Josephus,  Ant. 
X.  6.  1,  who,  after  describing  the  capture  of  Carchemish,  says,  that  u  Nebu 
chadnezzar  then  passed  over  the  Euphrates,  and  took  all  Syria  even  to  Pe- 
lusium,  nuQ^  ir^  'lovdctlag,  i.  e.  excepting  Judea ."  One  is  led  to  wonder,  at 
first  view,  how  Josephus  could  make  this  exception  ;  and  this  wonder  is  much 


28  EXC.  I.  ALLEGED  ERROR  IN  DATES. 

increased  by  comparing  the  declaration  in  question  with  what  he  says   in 
Cont.  Ap.  I.  19.       Beyond   any  reasonable  doubt,  the  two  passages  are  at 
variance.     In  the  latter  passage,  he  quotes  Berosus  as  saying,  that  Nebu 
chadnezzar's  father  "  sent  him  with  an  army  against  Egypt,  and  against 
T7/»-  tjfAneoar  yitVj  i.  e.  against  Judea."      And  in  the  sequel  he  quotes  Bero 
sus   as  also  saying,  that,  at  the  close  of  this  expedition,  Nebuchadnezzar 
<  sent  to  Babylon  Tore  w/^xmAo'jTorc  'JuvdottW,  the  captives  of  the  Jews,  as  well 
as  of  the   Syrians,  Phenicians,  and  Egyptians.'     Yet  Berosus  and  the  He 
brew  Scriptures  were,  beyond  all  reasonable  question,  the  only  authorities 
which  Josephus  had,  or  at  least  which  he  employed,  in  respect  to  the  his- 
^       tory  of  Nebuchadnezzar.    But  the  source  of  Josephus's  mistake  in  Antiq.  X. 
6.  1,  is  in  all  probability  to  be  found  in  a  passage  from  Berosus  in  Cont.  Ap. 
I.  19,  where,  in  making  a  summary  in  a  single  sentence  of  the  achieve 
ments  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  Chaldee  historian  says :  "  The  Babylonian 
[king]  conquered  Egypt,  Syria,  Phenicia,  Arabia,  and  in   his  achievments 
far  exceeded  all  the  kings  who  had  before  reigned  over  the  Chaldeans  and 
Babylonians."     In  this  mere  summary  sentence,  Berosus  omits  Judea,  i.  e. 
(?    the  small  country  of  the  two  tribes,  (for  this  was  Judea,  at  that  period)  ;  as 
he  also  omits  Moab,  the  country  of  the  Ammonites,  etc.  —  omits  them  evi 
dently  because  of  their  comparative  smallness.     Josephus  has  unwittingly 
overlooked  this,  and  so  he  has  excepted  Judea,  in  Antiq.  X.  6.  1,  because 
y    Berosus  has  not  mentioned  it  in  the  passage  just  quoted.    It  does  not,  indeed, 
much  commend  his  careful  accuracy  to  us,  when  we  find  him  so  doing,  be 
cause  Berosus,  as  quoted  by  him,  both  before  and  after  the   sentence  in 
,      question,  has   explicitly  averred  that  Nebuchadnezzar  came   up,  in  that 
very  first  expedition,  to  attack  Judea,  and  that  he  carried  away  captives 
from    that    country.      But    negligences    of    this  kind  are  somewhat  fre 
quent,   in    this  otherwise  very  valuable  historian.     E.  g.  in  respect  to  this 
same    portion   of  history,    Josephus    states    (Antiq.  X.    7.  l),    that,   when 
Nebuchadnezzar  took  Jehoiachin  captive,  he  carried  away  with  him  10832 
others  into  exile.     Now  this  statement  is  palpably  made  out  from  combining 
together  2  K.  24:  14  and  Jer.  52:  29  ;    Josephus  having  added  together  the 
numbers  in  both  passages,  without  noticing  that  one  deportation  is  in  the 
seventh,  and  the  other  in  the  eighth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar.     This  discrep 
ancy  he  does  not  even  notice,  much  less  pretend  to  reconcile.     And  so  he 
v    has  not  unfreqtiently  done  elsewhere.     He  needs  to  be  closely  watched  in 
such  matters.    Haste,  and  carelessness  of  such  a  kind,  may  not  unfrequently 
be  charged  upon  him.     I  cannot  think,  however,  that  he  meant  to  make  any 
g  wrong  statements. 

It  is  impossible  for  me,  after  having  carefully  examined  all  that  Berosus 
or  Josephus  has  to  say  on  these  matters,  to  attach  any  historical  value  to  the 
;r«()£|  T/js  3Iovduiag,  which  has  been  quoted  above  and  examined.  All 
things  being  duly  compared  and  considered,  I  cannot  but  think  that  the  evi 
dence  of  a  Babylonian  invasion,  commencing  in  the  latter  part  of  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  repeated  in  599  at  the  close  of  his  reign  ;  renewed 
against  Jehoiachin  in  598  ;  and  then,  lastly,  at  the  close  of  Zedekiah's 
reign  ;  are  facts  as  well  made  out,  and  as  probable,  as  most  facts  of  such  a 
nature  in  ancient  history.  Had  there  been  no  gain  to  be  made  out  of  this 
matter,  by  warmly  enlisted  partizans,  I  do  not  believe  that  it  would  have 
ever  been  seriously  controverted. 


EXC.  I.  ALLEGED  EKROR  IN  DATES.  29 

I  do  not  see,  then,  why  Lengerke  should  be  so  liberal  of  his  exclamation 
points,  when  speaking  of  the  intimation  of  Hengstenberg  and  Havernick, 
that  the  book  of  Daniel,  by  assigning  the  invasion  of  Palestine  to  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  has  shown  an  unusually  minute  and  accurate  acquaint 
ance  with  the  history  of  the  Hebrews.  Is  it  not  certain,  that  Nebuchadnez 
zar's  father  began  his  reign  as  independent  king,  in  625  B.  C.  ?  Is  it  not 
well  established  that  he  died  near  the  end  of  605  or  at  the  beginning  of 
604  ?  Is  it  not  sufficiently  established  by  historical  testimony,  that  Nebu 
chadnezzar  had  reduced  Carchemish  and  overrun  all  Syria,  Phenicia,  Moab, 
northern  Arabia,  Palestine,  and  Egypt,  before  the  death  of  his  father  ?  Was 
it  possible  to  accomplish  all  this  in  less  than  some  two  years  ?  If  not,  then 
Dan.  1:1,  2,  seems  plainly  to  be  in  the  right,  which  assigns  Nebuchadnezzar's 
first  invasion  of  Palestine  to  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim.  It  could  not 
have  been  later.  Exclamation-points,  it  would  be  well  for  Lengerke, 
and  sometimes  for  his  opponents  too,  to  remember,  are  not  arguments, 
either  ratiocinative  or  historical.  The  book  of  Daniel  must,  as  it  would  seem, 
be  in  the  right  as  to  the  main  point  in  question.  Nor  does  it  contradict  at  all 
the  other  books. 

The  appeal  made  to  Jer.  35:  11,  in  order  to  show  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
had  not  yet  invaded  Palestine,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  is  not  valid, 
because  there  is  no  note  of  time  in  chap,  xxxv,  and  because,  as  Nebuchad 
nezzar  probably  passed  through  Judea  several  times  during  his  first  inva 
sion,  there  are  no  data  in  this  chapter  to  decide  which  of  his  transitions 
occasioned  the  flight  of  the  Rechabites  to  Jerusalem.  The  fact  that  Jehoia 
kim  was  the  known  ally  and  vassal  of  Pharaoh  Necho,  would  of  itself  show, 
that  the  attitude  of  Nebuchadnezzar  toward  Palestine  must  have  been  one 
of  hostility.  The  probability  seems  to  be,  (comparing  this  chapter  with  the 
following  one),  that  the  Rechabites  fled  from  Nebuchadnezzar  when  he  was 
on  his  return  from  Carchemish ;  for  then  he  was  accompanied  by  troops 
from  the  conquered  nations  mentioned  in  Jer.  35:  11. 

I  would  merely  observe,  at  the  close  of  this  difficult  and  perhaps  too  long 
protracted  investigation,  that  no  one  who  has  experience  in  these  matters 
will  think  of  arguing  against  the  actual  occurrence  of  certain  particular 
events,  merely  because  they  are  not  stated  in  this  book  of  Scripture  or  in 
that,  since  nearly  all  of  the  Jewish  history  in  later  times  is  given  to  us  in  pro 
fessed  and  acknowledged  summaries  only.  One  writer  sometimes  sees  fit  to 
insert  some  special  particular,  which  the  rest  have  passed  by.  E.  g.  Jer.  51: 
59  seq.  mentions  a  journey  of  Zedekiah,  with  some  of  his  courtiers,  to  Baby 
lon,  in  the  fourth  year  of  his  reign.  In  2  Chron.  33:  11  seq.,  we  have  an 
account  of  Manasseh  as  having  been  carried  to  Babylon,  and  of  his  peni 
tence,  and  his  return  to  Jerusalem.  Nowhere  else  is  either  of  these  events 
even  alluded  to,  so  far  as  I  can  find.  Yet  after  the  recent  investigations 
respecting  the  books  of  Chronicles  by  Movers,  Keil,  and  others,  I  think  no 
sober  critic  will  be  disposed  to  call  in  question  the  position,  that  neither  of 
these  accounts  is  improbable,  and  that  neither  can,  on  any  grounds  worthy 
of  credit,  be  fairly  controverted.  And  I-  would  again  suggest,  that  when 
leading  events  as  to  time  and  place  are  certain,  an  assumption  of  particular 
circumstances  and  events  attending  them,  which  is  built  upon  the  common 
course  of  things  and  supported  by  probability,  is  surely  neither  uncritical 
nor  unsafe.  When  we  suppose,  for  example,  that  Daniel  and  his  associates 

3* 


30  CHAP.  II.  1. 

were  sent  to  Babylon  as  Jiostages,  at  the  time  when  Jehoiakim  first  became 
a  vassal  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  combine  this  supposition  with  the  declara 
tion  in  Dan.  1:  1  seq.,  we  suppose  what  seems  to  be  altogether  probable, 
although  we  cannot  establish  this  particular  by  any  direct  testimony,  but 
merely  by  implication. 

It  may  not  be  useless  to  add,  that  as  the  Jews  evidently  called  Nebuchad 
nezzar  king,  from  the  time  that  he  invaded  Palestine,  so  by  a  comparison 
of  Dan.  1:  1  seq.  Jer.  25:  1.  2  K.  25:  27,  we  make  out  forty-five  years 
(inclusively)  as  the  period  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign,  according  to  the  He 
brew  method  of  reckoning.  At  the  same  time,  Berosus  and  others  make  out 
only  forty-three  years.  Still,  there  is  no  real  disagreement  in  the  case. 
The  Jews  began  to  reckon  two  years  earlier  than  Berosus,  who  counts  only 
upon  the  sole  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  after  the  death  of  his  father. 


CHAPTER  II. 

[Nebuchadnezzar  is  filled  with  anguish  by  reason  of  a  dream,  the  particulars  of 
which  escaped  from  his  memory  after  he  had  awaked.  The  astrologers  and  their 
associates  are  summoned  to  disclose  both  the  dream  and  its  interpretation;  they  are 
threatened  with  severe  punishment  in  case  of  failure,  and  splendid  rewards  are  pro 
mised  in  case  of  success  ;  vs.  1 — 6.  They  request  the  king  to  disclose  the  dream,  in 
order  that  they  may  interpret  it ;  hut  he  declines  to  make  any  disclosure,  and  ac 
cuses  them  of  prevarication,  and  repeats  his  threats,  vs.  7 — 9.  On  their  part,  they 
accuse  him  of  making  a  demand  unreasonable  and  without  any  precedent,  and  avow 
that  none  but  the  gods  can  accomplish  such  a  task;  vs.  10,  11.  The  king  in  a  fury 
decrees  the  destruction  of  all  the  Magi;  vs.  12,  13.  Daniel  and  his  associates,  as 
being  among  this  class,  are  sought  for  by  the  executioner,  that  they  might  be  slain. 
Daniel  repairs  to  the  king  and  intercedes  for  delay,  during  which  he  and  his  com 
panions  betake  themselves  to  prayer;  vs.  13 — 18.  The  secret  of  the  dream  is  re- 
'vealed  to  Daniel  in  a  night-vision,  who  praises  God  for  his  mercy;  vs.  19 — 23. 
Daniel  is  at  his  own  request  brought  to  the  king,  and  discloses  the  dream;  vs.  24 — 35. 
Then  follows  the  interpretation  of  the  same;  vs.  36 — 45.  The  king  falls  prostrate 
'before  Daniel  and  does  him  homage.  He  acknowledges  the  superiority  of  the  true 
God,  and  promotes  Daniel  to  the  office  of  governor  of  Babylon,  and  chief  governor 
of  the  Magi.  His  companions,  at  his  request,  are  also  promoted  to  office;  vs.  46 
-49.] 

( 1 )  And  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  Nebuchadnezzar 
dreamed  dreams,  and  his  mind  was  agitated,  and  his  sleep  failed  him. 

fVC&&  ,  a  later  Hebrew  word  for  the  earlier  FO^Ea ,  reign,  dominion.,  not 
kingdom  in  such  a  connection  as  the  present.  For  the  omission  of 
Daghesh  lene  in  the  s,  see  §  21,  2.  e.  —  rvitfbn,  in  the  plural,  while  in 
vs.  3,  4,  5,  the  singular  is  employed.  As  the  king,  in  this  case,  does  not 
require  an  explanation  of  more  than  one  dream,  the  plural  form  before 


CHAP.  II.  1.  31 

us  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  same  dream  was  often  repeated ;  a 
circumstance  which  would  naturally  give  rise  to  the  anxiety  which  he 
felt,  and  which  was  adapted  to  make  a  deep  impression  on  his  mind.  — 
wn,  his  spirit  or  mind,  i.  e.  the  interior  man.  —  tsBntni  §  63,  3.  n.  1. 
b.  —  i"irnH3  Niph.  of  rrn .  The  very  existence  of  this  Conj.  in  such  a 
verb,  shows  that  some  peculiarity  of  meaning  is  attached  to  it.  In  ge 
neral,  it  seems  to  be  virtually  a  passive  of  Hiphil,  and  so  means  was 
made  to  be,  was  caused,  brought  about,  or  happened.  From  this  branches 
off  a  peculiar  meaning,  here  and  in  Dan.  8:  27,  a  kind  of  was  was,  i.  e. 
something  which  has  completed  its  existing  state  and  has  ceased  to  be, 
—fuimus  Trees.  Ges.  confectus  est,  deficit,  rightly  as  to  the  real  mean 
ing;  and  so  I  have  translated  }*by  fin^D ,  failed  him.  The  idea  is,  that 
his  sleep,  which  was  once  sound  and  refreshing,  was  now  past  or  gone  in 
respect  to  him.  The  seeming  repetition  of  his,  in  the  suff.  of  "P^s ,  is  not 
incongruous  in  Hebrew,  but  rather  common,  b?  is  =  bx ,  in  a  multi 
tude  of  cases ;  and  so  we  may  translate  literally :  for  him,  or  (as  above) 
in  respect  to  him.  The  construction  is  not  unlike  to  ?p~T£>  Gen.  12:  1, 
and  other  idioms  of  this  nature.  In  vulgar  English  we  say :  He  is  gone 
for  it ;  which  is  like  to  the  shape  of  the  phrase  before  us ;  but  the  *P- 
being  masc.,  it  appears  in  this  case  to  indicate  the  person  of  the  king,  and 
not  the  sleep.  Schultens,  Rosenm.,  Hav.,  and  some  others,  however, 
refer  l^bs  to  1'naiH  after  this  tenor :  His  sleep  was  against  him,  contra  ip- 
sum,  i.  e.  oppressive  or  burdensome  to  him,  a  meaning  not  unusual  to 
bs' ,  Lex.  A.  1.  j/.,  comp.  4.  a.  But,  to  say  the  least,  this  is  not  a  natural 
mode  of  expressing  such  an  idea,  although  it  may  be  a  possible  one. 
Surely,  after  saying  that  the  very  soul  of  the  king  was  agitated  by  his 
dream,  it  would  not'seem  to  be  making  much  progress,  to  add,  that  "  his 
sleep  was  troublesome  to  him."  Much  more  expressive  and  natu 
ral  is  the  idea,  that  he  was  sleepless,  which  is  the  idea  given  by  the  first 
interpretation.  Berth,  and  Winer:  His  sleep  went  away  from  him;  and 
so  Theodotion  :  gyeWro  an  avrov  ;  well  enough  as  to  the  general  mean 
ing,  but  Tb2  cannot  mean  from  him,  as  if  it  were  l"^'^ .  The  (Chaldee) 
example  in  Dan.  6:  19,  ""rtib?  rrna  "inaia,  which  most  translate  his  sleep 
fled  from  him,  although  evidently  of  the  same  general  meaning  as  the 
phrase  before  us,  will  not  justify  the  rendering  by  (in  avTOV  in  the  case 
before  us.  The  examples  of  a  Dative  (pleonastic  form)  after  a  verb  of 
motion,  are  indeed  by  no  means  uncommon,  e.  g.  Gen.  27:  43,  ~b  fi^2 , 
flee,  lit.  flee  for  thyself;  Isa.  31:  8,  ib  w,  he  has  fled,  Gen.  12:  1.'  Cant. 
2:  11.  Prov.  13:  13.  But  these  all  differ  from  the  present  case,  because 
the  suffix  pronoun  relates  to  the  subject  of  the  verb.  To  translate  Dan. 
6:  19,  by  his  sleep  fled  from  him,  gives  indeed  the  general  idea  in  our 


32  EXC.  II.  ALLEGED  ERROR  IN  DATES. 

language,  but  not  the  shape  of  the  expression  in  the  Hebrew.  That  the 
case  before  us  is  simply  one,  where  the  person  is  strongly  marked  to 
whom  the  assertion  relates,  cannot  well  be  doubted.  It  is  clear  that 
•nbs  does  not  refer  to 


Exc.  II.  A  second  charge  of  chronological  er,ror  against  the  book  of  Dan 
iel  is,  that  it  makes  an  evident  mistake  in  respect  to  the  period  when  Nebu 
chadnezzar's  dream  took  place,  and  Daniel  interpreted  it.  The  dream  was 
in  the  second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign,  Dan.  2:  1.  Previously  to 
this,  Daniel  and  his  fellows  had  been  subjected  to  a  three  years'  discipline, 
as  preparatory  to  waiting  upon  the  king,  Dan.  1:  5.  That  period  had 
passed,  before  Daniel  was  presented  to  the  king,  Dan.  1:  18.  How,  it  is 
asked,  could  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  king,  appoint  to  Daniel  three  years  of  disci 
pline,  and  yet  bring  in  the  same  Daniel,  in  the  second  year  of  his  actual  reign, 
to  interpret  his  dream,  when  it  is  evident,  from  the  author's  own  showing, 
that  this  Daniel  had  already  completed  his  three  years'  course  of  discipline, 
and  taken  his  place  among  the  Magi  before  he  was  called  to  interpret  the 
dream?  Dan.  1:  20.  2:  2,  13. 

If  the  result  of  the  preceding  investigation  be  admitted,  then  is  the  so 
lution  of  this  seemingly  difficult  problem  rendered  quite  easy.  Nebuchad 
nezzar  is  called  king,  in  Dan.  1:1,  after  the  usual  manner  of  the  Hebrews 
(comp.  2  Kings  24:  1.  2  Chron.  36:  6),  and  in  the  way  of  anticipation.  In 
fact  he  became  sole  king,  before  that  expedition  had  ended.  But  when  a 
Jewish  writer  in  Babylon  (Daniel)  comes  to  the  transactions  of  his  actual  reign 
as  reckoned  of  course  in  Babylon,  (for  of  course  the  date  of  his  reign  there 
would  be  from  the  period  when  he  became  sole  king),  the  writer  dates  the 
events  that  happened  under  that  reign,  in  accordance  with  the  Babylonish 
reckoning.  So  it  seems  to  be  in  Dan.  2:  1.  According  to  the  result  of  the 
preceding  examination,  Daniel  was  sent  to  Babylon  in  the  latter  part  of 
607  or  the  beginning  of  606.  Nebuchadnezzar  became  actual  king,  by  the 
death  of  his  father,  near  the  end  of  605  or  at  the  beginning  of  604.  Ne 
buchadnezzar's  second  year  of  actual  and  sole  reign  would  then  be  in  603. 
If  we  suppose  the  latter  part  of  this  year  to  be  the  time  when  the  dream 
occurred,  then  we  have  a  period  of  nearly  four  years  between  Daniel's  exile 
and  his  call  to  interpret  the  king's  dream.  Any  part  of  603  saves  the  ac 
curacy  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  in  respect  to  this  matter.  In  fact  it  lies  on 
the  very  face  of  this  statement  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  that  it  is  scrupulously 
conformed  to  historical  truth ;  for  how  could  the  writer,  after  having  an 
nounced  Daniel's  deportation  as  belonging  to  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim, 
and  his  discipline  as  having  been  completed  in  three  years,  then  declare 
that  Daniel  was  called  upon  as  one  of  the  Magi,  to  interpret  dreams  in  the 
second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  ?  If  Nebuchadnezzar  was  actual  king  in 
the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  he  was  so  when  Daniel  was  carried  away  to 
Babylon ;  and  plain  enough  is  it,  that  Daniel's  course  of  discipline  was  not 
complete  until  the  fourth,  or  at  least  the  end  of  the  third,  year  of  Nebu 
chadnezzar.  The  error  would,  in  such  a  case,  be  so  palpable,  that  no  wri 
ter  of  any  intelligence  or  consistency  could  fail  to  notice  and  correct  it. 
We  are  constrained  to  believe,  then,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  is  named  king 


CHAP.  II.  2.  33 

merely  in  the  way  of  anticipation,  in  Dan.  1:  1  (and  so  in  2  Kings  xxiv., 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.,  Jer.  xxv.)  ;  and  that  the  date  of  his  sole  and  actual  reign 
is  referred  to  in  Dan.  2:  1,  as  the  Babylonians  reckoned  it.  Thus  under 
stood,  all  is  consistent  and  probable.  We  need  not  resort  as  Rosenmiiller 
and  others  have  done,  to  a  long  series  of  dreams  on  the  part  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  in  which  the  same  thing  was  repeated  ;  nor  to  the  improbable 
subterfuge,  that,  although  he  dreamed  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign,  he 
did  not  concern  himself  to  find  out  an  interpreter  of  his  nocturnal  visions, 
until  some  considerable  time  afterwards.  Both  of  these  representations 
seem  to  me  to  be  contrary  to  the  plain  and  evident  tenor  of  the  whole  nar 
ration.  The  agitation  was  immediate,  and  the  stronger  because  it  was  im 
mediate.  Procrastination  of  the  matter  might,  and  probably  would,  have 
liberated  him  from  his  fears,  and  blunted  the  edge  of  his  curiosity. 

That  Jeremiah  reckons  in  the  Palestine  Jewish  way,  i.  e.  anticipalively, 
is  certain  from  Jer.  25:  1.  46:  2.  That  he  did  not  this  by  mistake,  but  only 
in  compliance  with  the  usage  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine,  seems  altogether 
probable.  On  the  other  hand,  the  state  of  facts  as  to  Nebuchadnezzar's 
conquests,  as  exhibited  above,  shows  that  his  invasion  of  Judea  must  have 
begun  as  early  as  Dan.  1:  1  asserts.  In  truth,  facts  and  events  vouch  for 
the  writer's  minute  historical  accuracy  in  this  matter,  in  case  it  be  conceded, 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  is  called  king,  in  Dan.  1:  1,  in  the  way  of  anticipa 
tion,  and  in  accordance  with  the  common  Hebrew  usage. 

(2)  And  the  king  commanded  to  summon  the  sacred  scribes,  and  the  enchanters, 
the  sorcerers,  and  the  astrologers,  that  they  might  shoAV  to  the  king  his  dreams  ;  and 
they  came,  and  stood  before  the  king. 


^I  ,  commanded;  see  1:  3.  —  fc^pb  >  to  summon  =  arcessivit  ;  for 
b,  see  Lex.  B.  3.  It  may  take  the  Dat.  with  b,  or  it  may  omit  it  ;  for 
the  usage  continually  varies.  In  the  present  instance,  however,  the  na 
ture  of  the  sense  would  seem  rather  to  demand  the  Ace.  after  the  verb  ; 
in  which  case  the  following  nouns  may  be,  in  accordance  with  the  later 
Hebrew  idiom,  which  often  puts  b  before  the  Ace.,  after  the  manner  of 
the  Aramaean  ;  Lex.  3.  4.  c.  ad  fin.  Yet  if  we  translate  thus,  to  make 
proclamation  to  the  sacred  scribes,  etc.,  the  Dative  is  preferable.  For  the 
first  two  nouns,  see  1:  20.  The  root  t]^x  seems  to  mean  incantavit,  i.  e. 
by  chanting  some  formulas  of  imaginary  potency,  to  influence  in  a  mys 
terious  but  potent  manner.  The  like  to  this  has  prevailed  in  most  of 
the  heathen  forms  of  religion.  —  D^aisbri  ,  participial  noun  (Piel),  which 
probably  designates  a  species  of  enchanters,  who  sing  magic  songs  in  a 
low  and  peculiar  tone.  In  Syriac,  the  verb  (in  Ethp.)  means  to  suppli 
cate  ;  in  Heb.,  to  mutter  or  speak  with  a  low  voice.  The  literal  sense 
would  seem  to  be  nearly  designated  by  that  of  the  Latin  incantator,  i.  e. 
one  who  cantillates  supplications,  execrations,  and  the  like,  in  order  to 
prevent  or  remove  evil,  or  to  obtain  some  disclosure  of  interest  to  the 
party  concerned.  But  still,  the  Latin  word  is  probably  too  generic  to 
be  strictly  accurate.  It  is  unquestionably  near  akin  to  fi^Bisx  ;  which,  if 


34  CHAP.  II.  2.  Exc.  III.  ON  THE  CHALDEES. 


we  may  trust  to  the  shade  of  meaning  disclosed  in  SiQirx  ,  quiver  or  cover 
for  arrows,  probably  meant  originally  to  cover,  conceal,  and  the  like. 
Hence  D^Sirx  may  mean  merely  those  who  practised  hidden  or  concealed 
arts.  What  these  were  in  particular,  no  text  informs  us  ;  but  a  com 
parison  of  the  practices  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  soothsayers  will  easily 
show  how  many  and  various  these  might  have  been.  trS'sr^  ,  a  kindred 
participial  word  which  seems  to  designate  the  suppresed  cantillation  or 
low  muttering  of  the  formulas  of  conjurers,  may  of  course  imply  a  par 
ticular  species  of  the  Chaldean  Magi.  —  a^irs,  astrologers  here,  but 
originally  this  was  the  name  of  the  people  inhabiting  Babylonia.  So  far 
back  as  the  time  of  Abraham,  the  Mesopotamian  region  was  called  the 
land  of  the  Chaldees,  Gen.  11:  28,  81.  15:  7.  Comp.  Ezek.  1:  3.  11:  24. 


Exc.  III.    On  the  Chaldees. 

Some  Greek  writers  frequently  apply  the  word  Chaldees  (X«A5«Iot)  to 
a  fierce  people,  in  the  mountainous  country  bordering  on  Armenia.  Xeno- 
phon  met  with  such  on  his  retreat,  and  he  has  often  made  mention  of  them ; 
e.  g.  Anab.  IV.  3.  4.  V.  5.  17.  VII.  8:  25.  Comp.  Hab.  1:  6  seq.  Job  1:17. 
Strabo  notices  tribes  of  the  same  name,  in  the  country  of  Pontus,  XII.  c. 
3.  p.  26,  27,  36,  Tom.  III.  edit.  Lip.  From  the  Armenian  [Assyrian] 
Chaldees  many  writers  have  of  late  supposed  the  Babylonian  Chaldees  to 
have  come;  which  Isa.  23:  13,  as  interpreted  by  them,  seems  to  favor: 
"  See  !  the  country  of  the  Chaldeans,  this  people  was  not ;  Assyria  assigned 
it  [the  country]  to  the  dwellers  of  the  desert ;  they  [the  Chaldees]  erect 
their  watch-towers,  they  set  in  commotion  the  palaces  of  it  [Tyre],  they 
make  it  a  heap  of  ruins."  As  Assyria  anciently  extended  her  dominion 
over  all  middle  Asia,  and  of  course  over  the  Armenian  Chaldees,  the  latter 
might,  under  their  permission,  have  emigrated  to  the  plains,  and  being  a 
courageous  and  warlike  people,  they  might  have  obtained  preeminence 
wherever  they  settled,  over  the  feeble  inhabitants  of  the  plains.  But  if 
the  Nomades  of  Chaldean  Armenia  were  indeed  the  predominant  portion  of 
the  Babylonish  people,  so  that  the  country  was  early  named  from  them, 
those  Nomades  must  at  least  have  emigrated  at  an  early  period  of  the  As 
syrian  dynasty,  i.  e.  during  the  one  which  preceded  the  invasion  of  Ar- 
baces,  and  (according  to  Ctesias)  ended  with  Sardanapalus,  B.  C.  747. 

The  deductions  from  Isa.  23:  13,  by  Gesenius,  Hitxig,  Knobel  and  others, 
viz.  that  the  Chaldean  power  and  even  name  in  southern  Mesopotamia  and 
Babylon  are  of  recent  origin,  must  depend  mainly  on  the  correctness  of 
their  exegesis  of  the  text  in  question.  But  this  is  far  froui  being  made  out. 
On  the  other  hand,  substantially  with  Hupfeld  (Exercitt),  and  Leo  (Allgem. 
Geschichte,  s.  106),  we  may  with  much  more  probability  translate  thus: 
"Behold!  the  country  of  the  Chaldeans  —  this  people  was  not  [a  people]  ; 
Assyria  —  it  has  assigned  it  to  the  beasts  of  the  desert ;  they  erected  their 
towers,  they  watched  her  palaces ;  [but]  it  has  made  her  a  heap  of  ruins." 

In  this  way  we  have  one  main  agent,  viz.  the  Chaldean  people.     The 


CHAP.  II.  2.    Exc.  III.  ON  THE  CHALDEES.  35 

"  heap  of  ruins"  is  Nineveh,  and  the  "  desert"  made  by  invasion,  is  the 
Assyrian  domain.  The  prophet  is  threatening  Tyre,  and  bids  her  look  to 
what  the  Chaldeans,  their  invaders,  have  already  achieved  in  Assyria.  It 
were  easy  to  vindicate  the  interpretation  just  given,  but  Hupfeld  (Exercitt. 
Herod.)  has  sufficiently  done  it,  and  it  would  be  out  of  place  here.  The 
reason  why  I  have  now  introduced  the  subject  is,  because  this  text  is  the 
main  dependence  of  many  recent  critics  for  establishing  a  favorite  posi 
tion  of  theirs,  to  which  I  have  already  adverted,  viz.  that  the  Chaldean 
power,  and  even  name,  in  southern  Mesopotamia  and  Babylon,  is  compara 
tively  recent,  and  that  Chaldea  was  unknown  to  the  biblical  writers  before 
the  time  of  Jehoiakim,  at  least  as  a  national  and  independent  country. 

Facts,  strong  and  (as  it  seems  to  me)  irresistible,  make  against  this. 
Schleyer,  in  his  Wiirdigung  der  Einwiirfe,  s.  48  seq.,  138  seq.,  has  made 
objections  to  it  which  cannot  well  be  met.  Shinar  was  the  older  name  of 
Babylonia,  Gen.  11:2.  This  had  a  king  (Amraphel)  in  the  days  of  Abra 
ham,  Gen.  14:  1,  9.  That  Babylon  justly  claims  a  very  high  antiquity, 
cannot  be  denied.  Ctesias,  Herodotus,  Berosus,  the  Jewish  SS.,  all  agree 
in  this.  The  latter  make  Nimrod  its  founder,  who  was  a  grandson  of  Noah 
(B.  C.  2218),  Gen.  10:  8.  Its  walls,  towers,  palaces,  bridges,  dykes,  and 
architecture  of  every  kind,  most  of  which  was  on  a  gigantic  scale  that  ri 
valled  or  exceeded  that  of  Egypt,  prove  incontestably  an  advanced  state  of 
knowledge  in  Babylon  at  a  very  early  period,  and  indicate  a  metropolis  of  the 
highest  grandeur.  Other  facts  of  much  importance  are  in  accordance  with 
this.  Simplicius  (Cornm.  ad  Aristot.  de  Coelo,  p.  123)  tells  us,  that  Ca- 
listhenes,  who  accompanied  Alexander  the  Great  to  Babylon,  found  astro 
nomical  observations  there  which  reached  back  to  1903  years  before  that 
period,  and  which  he  sent  to  Aristotle ;  and  also  that  the  Magi  claimed  to 
be  in  possession  of  much  older  ones  still.  Ptolemy,  in  his  famous  Canon, 
plainly  allows  their  astronomical  observations  to  be  correct  as  far  back  as 
Nabonassar  (about  747  B.  C.),  and  there  begins  his  era  from  which  he 
dates  events.  Larcher,  and  above  all  Ideler  (on  the  Astronomy  of  the 
Chaldees),  have  shown  that  the  period  of  1903  years  is  neither  impossible 
nor  improbable  ;  as  Gesenius  himself  appears  to  concede,  Comm.  in  Es. 
III.  p.  350.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  Diodorus  Sic.  (II.  29)  says  expressly, 
that  the  Chaldean  priests  (whom,  like  Daniel,  he  calls  Chaldeans},  are  of 
the  most  ancient  Babylonians,  Xakdaloi  lolvw  IMV  (tg/niorarwv  oVrfc  Ba- 
fivlMvlwv.  All  this  seems  to  show,  that  the  Chaldees  (both  nation  and 
priests)  are  of  the  highest  antiquity,  and  that  an  emigration  from  the 
northern  mountains,  if  it  ever  took  place  so  as  to  give  a  name  to  the  coun 
try,  must  have  been  at  a  very  remote  period.  Whenever  it  was,  priests 
and  people  appear  to  have  come  to  Babylonia  together.  There  they  amal 
gamated  with  the  population  ;  and  the  Magi,  (the  priests  of  the  fire-wor 
shippers,  such  as  are  described  by  Zoroaster  in  the  Zend-Avesta),  probably 
engaged  in  the  studies,  and  united  in  some  of  the  pursuits,  of  the  native 
priests  in  Babylon;  the  conquerors  thus  assimilating  to  the  conquered,  their 
superiors  in  knowledge,  like  the  Goths  and  Vandals  assimilating  to  the 
Romans.  Hence  the  mixture  of  Parsism  and  gross  polytheism  in  the  reli 
gion  of  Babylon  ;  for  plainly  the  latter  contains  both  elements.  In  this 
way,  moreover,  can  we  account  for  that  mixture  of  the  Zend  and  Pehlvi 
languages  with  the  Semitic,  in  the  composition  of  many  names  and  offices 
in  Babylon,  in  the  time  of  Daniel.  Mac/  (Xa  Jer.  39:  3)  is  the  same  as 


3G  CHAP.  II.  2.   Exc.  III.  ON  THE  CHALDEES. 

the  Sanscrit  maJia,  Pers.  mogJi,  Zend  meJi,  and  is  equivalent  to  the  He 
brew  :n  ;  and  the  "p3p3n  in  Daniel  are  the  same  as  the  n^Jra  and  D1^  .  But 
although  many,  or  perhaps  even  most,  of  the  proper  names  of  men  and  of 
civil  offices  among  the  Chaldeans  are  best  explained  from  the  Zend,  or  the 
old  Persian,  yet  the  names  of  their  gods  and  of  their  religious  offices  are 
mostly  of  a  Semitic  origin  ;  e.  g.  Belus  =  bs*2  or  b?S  ;  Mylitta  =  rnbi'a 
(genetrix)  ;  D^Ip^in  from  B'nn ,  Dan.  1:  20.  2:  2,  and  also  in  Gen.  41:  8. 
Ex.  7:  11,  22.  8:  &,  14,  15.  9:  V 1  ;  S]TSX  ,  Dan.  1:  20.  2:  2  (Chald.),  10,  27. 
4:  4.  5:  7,  11,  15,  ==  Syr.  jLaa^]  J  JT'fi?^? ,  Dan.  2:  2,  also  Ex.  7:  11.  22: 

17.  Deut.  18:  10.  Mai.  3:  5;  and  so  the  generic  Chaldec  word  D^n  (= 
Magus),  Dan.  2:  12,  21.  4:  3.  5:  7,  8,  is  notoriously  the  same  as  the  He 
brew  C3n  .  But  many  of  the  names  of  kings,  and  of  the  higher  civil  offi 
cers,  seem  to  be  compounds  of  Semitic  with  the  Parsi,  Pehlvi,  or  Zend ; 
such  as  Nebuchadnezzar,  Belshazzar,  etc.  (see  Lex.)  The  internal  evi 
dence,  therefore,  of  a  mixture  of  inhabitants  in  Chaldea,  from  some  quarter 
or  other,  appears  to  be  inscribed  in  high  relief  upon  the  language  of  the 
Chaldeans,  in  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  religion  of  the  Babylo 
nians,  (as  exhibited  best  of  all  by  Miinter  in  his  Essay  on  this  subject,  and 
by  Gesenius  in  his  Excursus  at  the  end  of  his  Comm.  on  Isaiah),  affords 
striking  evidence  of  Parsism  and  polytheism  commingled  by  the  union  of 
different  nations  who  retained  some  of  their  respective  rites,  and  by  the 
natural  progress  of  the  attractive  sensual  parts  of  those  rites,  as  the  me 
tropolis  progressed  in  riches  and  luxury  and  debauchery. 

This  general  view  of  the  subject  seems  necessary  in  order  to  place  the 
reader  of  the  book  of  Daniel  in  a  position,  in  which  he  may  rightly  esti 
mate  the  various  phenomena  of  the  book.  There  is  a  mixture  throughout 
of  the  Assyro-Median  and  Semitic,  both  in  the  names  of  men  and  offices, 
and  also  in  the  rites,  customs,  and  opinions  of  the  inhabitants.  That  the 
Assyro-Cha\dea.n.  at  the  time  when  Daniel  lived,  was  the  common  spoken 
language  of  the  court  and  king,  seems  to  be  plainly  negatived  by  Dan.  '2:  4 
seq.  The  Magi  address  the  king  ri^^X  i.  e.  in  the  Aramaean,  which  is 
substantially  the  same  that  we  now  name  East  Aramaean  or  Chaldee.  In 
this  language,  more  than  half  of  the  book  of  Daniel  is  composed.  Doubt 
less  the  Jews  who  lived  in  that  quarter  when  Daniel  wrote  the  book,  could 
read  and  understand  it ;  and  indeed  to  the  younger  part  of  them,  at  that 
period,  it  must  have  been  vernacular,  or  nearly  so.  It  is  even  quite  proba 
ble,  that  the  history  contained  in  the  book  of  Daniel  would  thus  be  more 
easily  read  by  the  younger  portion  of  the  Hebrew  community  in  that  region, 
than  if  it  had  been  in  the  Hebrew ;  and  this,  perhaps,  might  have  been  the 
inducement  to  write  it  in  Aramaean. 

But  to  return  to  the  fii'nbsn  of  our  text;  I  have  only  to  add,  that  this 
name,  employed  to  designate  a  literary  order  of  men  (equivalent  to  CPESH , 
Chald.  'f^^sn ,  and  Magi),  passed  into  very  common  use  among  the  Greeks 
and  Ilomans.  So  Strabo  XV.  Tom.  III.  p.  326.  ed.  Lips.  Diod.  Sic.  2.  29 
seq.  Cic.  Div.  1.  1,  2.  Ammian.  Marc.  23.  6.  Arrian  Alex.  3.  16.  In  still 
later  times,  fortune-tellers  and  magicians  from  the  East  were  called  Chal 
deans,  by  European  nations.  The  progress  of  meaning  in  regard  to  the 
appellation  is  obvious.  First,  the  Chaldees  are  conquerors,  and  offices,  or 
whatever  else  is  eminent,  are  called  Chaldean  par  excellence.  Then,  as 
Chaldea  abounded  in  astrologers  and  soothsayers,  it  was  natural  for  Greeks 


CHAP.  II.  2.  Exc.  III.  ON  THE  CHALDEES.  37 

• 

and  Romans  to  call  these  classes  of  men  by  the  name  of  Chaldeans.  Last 
of  all,  among  the  western  nations,  soothsayers  and  magicians  were  called 
by  the  same  name,  without  any  special  regard  to  the  country  from  which 
they  sprung.  One  meets,  not  unfrequently  in  the  classics,  with  the  appel 
lation  employed  in  this  manner. 

Several  questions,  of  some  importance  in  regard  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  book  of  Daniel,  have  been  recently  made,  first  in  regard  to  the  number 
of  classes  specified  in  the  verse  before  us,  and  then  in  respect  to  the  em 
ployment  of  D"nb3  ,  as  designating  only  one  portion  of  the  Magi. 

To  begin  with  the  latter  ;  Gesenius  (Comm.  in  Es.  II.  s.  355)  seems  to 
call  in  question  the  limited  meaning  of  the  word,  and  Bleek  (on  Dan.  in 
Schleiermacher,  etc.,  Zeitschrift,  s.  225)  even  doubts  whether  there  was 
any  such  thing  as  different  classes.  Both  doubt  against  the  evidence  of 
usage  widely  extended.  Daniel  plainly  uses  the  word  to  denote  a  class  of 
the" Magi,  in  2:  2,  10.  4:  4  (Engl.  Vers.  4:  7).  5:  7,  11.  And  when  Ge 
senius  and  Hitzig  suggest,  that  in  Dan.  2:  4,  10,  the  name  Chaldeans  is 
generically  employed,  Lengerke  himself,  (sufficiently  inclined  to  all  which 
can  make  against  the  genuineness  of  the  book),  avers  very  justly  that  this 
is  only  in  the  way  of  breviloquence,  where  one  class  that  is  preeminent  is 
named  instead  of  recapitulating  or  particularizing  all,  (Comm.  s.  50).  De 
cisive,  as  to  the  usage  of  such  a  method  of  expression  by  the  writer,  is  Dan. 
3:  24,  where  only  the  "p"n1n!j  (state-counsellors)  are  addressed,  while  v.  27 
shows  that  they  are  only  one  class  of  the  State-officers  then  and  there  as 
sembled,  to  witness  the  spectacle  which  is  described.  Such  methods  of 
breviloquence  are  quite  common  ;  and  besides  all  this,  we  have  heathen 
usage  of  the  same  kind  as  that  under  discussion  ;  e.  g.  Herod.  1.  181,  ol 
XuiSaloi,  lovtfg  ifQifg  TOVTOV  TOV  &fov  [i.e.  .BfjAov],  comp.  I.  183,  where 
Xoddaloi  occurs  three  times  in  the  same  sense  ;  Diod.  Sic.  II.  24,  TWV  ityewv, 
ovq  Bnfivlwvioi  xaAoi'0-i  XwA<5«/ot'c,  and  again  in  c.  29,  Xnkdcuot,  TOIVI  v  TWV 
tXQXitioTaiwv  Bufivkwvi'wv  .  .  .  nrtyan/.rjfflav  tyovai  xa^iv  TOIC  X«T'  Al'yvmov 
ItyfVffi  ;  and  so  Hesychius,  XuJ.Suuoi,  yevos  Mixyuv.  Ctesias  (edit.  Bahr, 
p.  68)  seems,  indeed,  to  use  Chaldeans  and  Mayi  as  synonymes  ;  and  so, 
as  we  have  seen  above,  later  usage  among  Greeks  and  Romans  often  em 
ployed  the  words.  But  even  in  Ctesias,  the  context  shows  that  by  Chaldeans 
is  there  meant  the  higher  order  of  the  Magi.  So  in  Dan.  2:  4,  10. 

Thus  much  for  the  limited  use  of  the  name  Chaldeans,  which  is  sufficiently 
clear  and  certain.  As  to  the  number  of  the  classes,  with  respect  to  which 
Lengerke  (s.  49  f.)  thinks  he  detects  the  error  of  a  later  writer  who  was 
not  intimately  acquainted  with  Chaldean  matters,  the  question  seems  not  to 
be  one  of  any  great  difficulty.  He  admits,  as  do  nearly  all  others,  that  there 
were  divisions  or  classes  among  the  Magi.  This  was  notoriously  the  case  as 
to  the  priests  in  Egypt,  Ex.  7:  11.  Herod.  II.  36.  58.  Jablonsky,  Panth. 
Egypt.  Prol.  c.  3.  The  division  of  priests  in  India,  from  the  remotest  period, 
is  well  known.  The  Medes  and  Persians  admitted  the  like  divisions  among 
their  Magi.  The  author  of  Daniel,  in  2:  2.  4:  4.  (Eng.  4:  7).  5:  7,  12,  ap 
pears  to  name  Jive  classes  of  Magi,  (if  indeed  the  O"|E1B3B  of  2:  2  be  not 
merely  another  name  for  the  'p'nta  01  the  other  passages)  ;  on  account  of 
which  Lengerke  accuses  him  of  mistake  ;  and  he  declares  (p.  47),  that  '  all 
other  ancient  writers  everywhere  acknowledge  only  three  classes,'  and  con 
cludes  from  this  that  the  writer  of  the  book  was  some  person  of  a  later  age 

4 


38  CHAP.  II.  2%  Exc.  III.  ON  THE  CHALDEES. 

and  of  a  remote  country,  where  tradition  gave  an  indistinct  and  uncertain 
report.  His  authorities  as  to  the  '  united  report  of  all  antiquity,'  are  Jerome 
(Contra  Jovin.  I.  p.  55),  and  Porphyry  (de  Abstin.  4.  16).  These  are 
somewhat  late  writers  as  to  the  matter  of  testifying,  '  for  all  antiquity,'  to  a 
particular  usage  in  Babylon  about  a  thousand  years  before  their  time.  But 
in  fact  neither  of  these  give  their  own  testimony.  They  both  appeal  to  Eu- 
bulus.  If  Eubulus  the  philosopher  is  meant,  he  lived  about  200  B.  C.  If 
either  the  comedian  or  the  orator  of  the  same  name  be  meant,  (which  seems 
not  probable),  they  lived  about  376  B.  C.  In  his  history  of  Mithra,  Eubu 
lus  asserts,  that  '  the  Magi  were  divided  into  three  classes.'  When  ?  In 
his  time,  or  at  an  earlier  period  ?  Among  the  Persians,  or  among  the  Baby 
lonians  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  time  ?  Unquestionably  he  refers  to  the  Per 
sians,  inasmuch  as  the  history  of  Mithra  concerns  them.  But  even  admitting 
the  correctness  of  the  testimony  at  the  time  when  it  was  given,  it  proves 
nothing  in  respect  to  the  custom  or  usage  at  Babylonia,  in  the  seventh  cen 
tury  B.  C.  Magi  indeed  there  were  at  Babylonia  ;  for  among  the  military 
chieftains  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  at  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  in  Zedekiah's  time, 
was  Nergal  Sharezer  3^3  3*1 ,  chief  Magian.  The  priesthood,  so  far  from 
excluding  men  from  civil  or  military  office  in  those  times,  was  a  leading 
recommendation  of  them  to  appointments  of  this  nature,  because  it  implied 
an  unusual  degree  of  knowledge.  Thus  Ctesias  represents  Belesys,  the 
leader  of  the  Chaldeans  when  Nineveh  was  destroyed,  as  "  the  most  distin 
guished  of  the  priests,  ov<;  Batfii'kwvioi  y.ahoi'ffi  Xukdtxiovg,"  Diod.  Sic. II.  24. 
So  a  Magian  was  elevated  to  the  throne  of  Persia,  after  the  death  of  Cam- 
byses  ;  Ctes.  Persica,  c.  13  seq.  So,  after  the  death  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
father,  while  the  former  was  carrying  on  the  war  in  Judea,  the  affairs  of 
government,  before  the  return  of  the  prince  to  Babylon,  were  administered 
by  priests  [juno  X«Ad«tW],  and  the  supremacy  was  vested  in  the  archimagus, 
who  gave  it  up,  in  due  time,  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  according  to  Berosus  in 
Joseph.  Antiq.  X.  11. 1.  In  fact  the  oriental  and  Egyptian  kings,  as  well 
as  some  of  the  Caesars,  paid  the  homage  to  the  priesthood  of  becoming 
members  of  their  body,  if  they  were  not  already  so  when  they  became  kings. 
It  may,  I  readily  concede,  have  been  the  usual  fact,  that  the  leading  divi 
sions  of  the  Persian  Magi  were  three  in  number.*  But  this  would  be  of  little 
avail  in  showing  that  such  was  the  custom  of  the  Babylonians,  among  whom, 
although  the  priesthood  retained,  as  it  would  seem,  the  honorary  name  of 
Magi,  yet  their  religion  differed  in  the  most  striking  manner,  in  many  re- 

*  But  this  is  not  established  by  the  Zend-Avesta,  as  cited  by  Heeren,  (Ideen  I. 
s.  480,  ed.  3d) ;  for  in  Kleuker's  edition,  II.  261,  only  tico  classes  are  spoken  of,  viz. 
Herbeds  and  Mobeds.  But  in  Yesht  Sades,  (LXXX11I.  ad  fin.  II.  p.  194),  the  Avesta 
speaks  of  the  three  orders  of  the  Athorne  =  priests ;  again  (ib.  p.  276),  the  same  thing 
is  mentioned ;  onee  more  (p.  156),  "  the  threefold,  like  the  Athorne."  But  in  another 
passage  four  orders  of  priests  seem  to  be  designated.  So  in  Zend  Avesta,  III.  p.  225, 
we  find//erfo?c?(=candidate  for  the  priesthood),  Mobed( priest),  Destur-Mohed  (teacher- 
priest),  and  Destur Desturan  (=  archbishop),  a  provincial  superior.  Probably  the  case 
is  the  same  in  the  Zend-Avesta  as  in  Daniel :  i.  e.  sometimes  the  leading  class  only 
is  noted,  as  in  2:  4, 10 ;  then  again  we  have  four  classes,  in  2:  2  ;  in  5:  7  are  three 
classes,  (one  a  new  one) ;  four  classes  in  4:  4  :  three  in  5:  7  ;  and  four  in  5:  1 1.  To 
insist,  now,  that  any  one  of  these  passages  exhibits  the  full  and  exclusive  designation 
of  all  the  classes  of  the  Magi,  would  be  entirely  nugatory. 


CHAP.  II.  2.  Exc.  III.  ON  THE  CHALDEES. 


spects,  from  that  of  the  Parsis.  In  the  rites  of  the  latter,  there  was  no  temple, 
no  altar,  no  sacrifice  of  human  victims,  no  consumption  by  fire  even  of  any 
victims,  no  images  of  gods,  no  prostitution-worship  of  Mylitta,  in  a  word 
none  of  the  impurity,  cruelty,  ridiculous  prodigality  of  expenditure,  and 
abominable  rites  of  the  Babylonians.  All  matters  of  religion  had  been 
changed,  by  the  commingling  of  the  (Assyro-)  Chaldean  conquerors  with 
the  grosser  and  more  sensual  heathen  of  Babylonia,  if  indeed  we  concede 
such  tin  intermixture.  How  then  can  testimony  about  the  Magi  in  a  coun 
try  where  pure  Parsism  prevailed,  be  applicable  to  the  case  of  the  Babylo 
nian  priests  and  literati,  as  described  by  Daniel  ?  But  if  we  must  resort,  in 
the  present  case,  to  the  testimony  of  Greek  writers,  the  position  of  Len- 
gerke  is  far  enough  from  being  confirmed.  Diodorus  Sic.,  in  speaking 
Tifol  TMV  ev  BafiukMVi  xttAoi'wsVojv  X  «  A  8  K  I  to  v  ,  represents  them  as 
practising  astrology,  soothsaying,  magic,  incantations,  augury  from  the  flight 
of  birds,  and  the  interpretation  of  dreams  and  remarkable  occurrences, 
II.  29  ;  all  of  which  plainly  betokens  different  classes.*  Strabo,  most  of  all 
among  the  Greeks  to  be  relied  on  in  such  matters,  says  (XVI.  1.  §  6), 
"  There  are,  among  the  Chaldean  astronomers,  ywr\  TiAa'to  many  kinds  or 
classes,  some  are  called  Orclieni,  and  some  Borsippeni,  besides  many  others 
(«AA(H  nfaiovg),  who  affirm  different  things  in  respect  to  their  doctrines, 
according  to  their  respective  sects."  Here  then  is  abundance  of  room  for 
the  four  or  five  classes  of  Daniel  ;  and  it  is  indeed  quite  probable  that  the 
subdivisions  must  have  amounted  to  many  more,  although  it  was  not  to  his 
purpose  to  name  any  more  than  the  leading  ones.  At  all  events,  the  testi 
mony  of  Daniel  stands  high  above  any  fair  exception,  in  regard  to  the  classi 
fication  of  the  Magi.  Certainly  he  has  named  no  improbable  class.  Nearly 
all  of  the  classes  named,  indeed,  appertain  to  the  priesthood  of  the  heathen, 
as  elsewhere  exhibited  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  if  there  be  a  class  sui  generis 
in  Daniel,  there  can  be  no  good  reason  to  charge  him  with  error  ;  for  how 
can  we  reasonably  suppose,  that  there  was  not  some  one  class  or  more  of 
the  priesthood  that  was  peculiar  to  Babylon  ? 

*  Certainly  this  assertion  seems  very  probable,  if  we  turn  our  attention,  fora  mo 
ment,  to  the  divisions  of  the  priesthood  among  the  Greeks,  in  relation  to  such  mat 
ters.  With  them  every  god  and  goddess  had  a  separate  order  of  priests  ;  and  even 
the  same  orders  differed  from  each  other  in  different  plaecs.  Again,  each  of  these 
orders  had  a  high-priest  ;  in  some  places  two  ;  the  Delphians  five.  Then  there  were 
assistants  of  the  sacred  order,  viz.  the  Parasiti  or  those  who  provided  materials  for 
the  celebration  of  religious  rites,  and  then  the  Kr/pvaef  or  cnVrs,  who  also  acted  the 
part  of  cooks  and  butchers.  Besides  these  classes,  there  were  the  vctjaopoi,  who  kept 
clean  and  adorned  the  temples  ;  then  the  vaoipv'Aaicec  who  guarded  those  temples  ; 
and  lastly  the  Trponotoi  or  general  waiters  ;  Potter's  Gr.  Antiq  I.  p.  222  seq.  Be 
yond  these  general  divisions,  were  subordinate  ones  almost  without  end  ;  e  g.  as  to 
diviners,  pavreie,  %pija[U>?i6)oi,  tieofiuvTeis,  of  three  kinds;  interpreters  of  dreams, 
bveipoKpirai,  &vetpocntojrot,  oveipOTroAot;  divination  by  sacrifices  employed  at  least  six 
classes  :  by  birds,  at  least  as  many  more  ;  by  lots,  at  least  three  ;  by  ominous  words  and 
things,  many  classes  ;  by  magic  and  incantation,  at  least  nineteen  ;  Potter  ib.pp.327seq. 
We  must  add  to  all  this,  that  the  priesthood  among  the  Romans  was  arranged  in  quite 
a  similar  way.  I  do  not  aver  that  the  Chaldeans  made  all  of  these  subdivisions,  which 
are  almost  endless;  but  I  may  well  say,  that  the  offices  which  Diodorus  ascribes  to 
their  Magi,  involves,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  something  not  unlike  to  this. 


40  CHAP.  II.  2.  Exc.  III.  ON  THE  CHALDEES. 

The  suggestion  of  Gesenius  (Comm.  II.  p.  355),  that  the  writer  in  all 
probability  merely  brought  together  the  various  designations  of  such  classes 
of  persons  as  are  mentioned  elsewhere  in  the  Heb.  Scriptures  ;  and  the  as 
sertion  of  Lengerke  (p.  47),  that  'he  undoubtedly  did  thus  ;'  seem  to  have 
no  other  basis  than  an  inclination  to  throw  discredit  upon  the  book,  and  in 
dustriously  to  collect  and  reckon  up  everything  which  may  help  to  show, 
that  the  writer  was  lacking  as  to  accurate  knowledge.  Something  more  than 
this,  however,  seems  necessary  in  order  to  discredit  the  book  in  question. 

Equally  nugatory  seems  to  be  the  assertion  of  Bleek,  (Schleierm.  etc. 
Zeits.  s.  225),  that  'it  is  altogether  wonderful,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  should 
summon  all  classes  of  the  Magi  to  interpret  his  dream,  instead  of  summon 
ing  the  appropriate  class,  viz.  the  om^oyxdno*.'  It  is  enough  to  say  in  re 
ply,  that  as  Nebuchadnezzar  had  forgotten  all  the  particulars  of  his  dream, 
and  these  were  required  to  be  disclosed  as  well  as  the  interpretation  to  be 
given ;  and  moreover,  since  he  knew,  as  the  Magi  assert  (Dan.  2:  10),  that 
*  no  king  or  ruler  was  wont  to  make  such  a  demand  ;'  the  very  difficulty 
and  extraordinary  nature  of  the  case  would  naturally  induce  him  to  sum 
mon  all  classes  of  his  "pE^Sn  ,  so  that  what  one  class  could  not  accomplish, 
another  perhaps  might  be  able  to  do.  Nothing  was  more  common  among  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  than,  where  one  method  of  divination  failed,  to  resort 
to  another.  Probability,  therefore,  and  consistency  are  stamped  upon  the 
very  face  of  the  narrative,  in  regard  to  this  matter. 

One  other  objection  against  the  probability  of  the  narration  in  Dan.  ii., 
has  been  strongly  urged,  viz.  '  the  improbability  that  a  foreigner  should  be 
admitted  among  the  Magi ;  and  above  all,  that  a  most  rigid  Jew  could  at  all 
be  promoted  to  supremacy  over  the  whole  order,  as  it  is  related  of  Daniel 
(2:  48),  that  he  became  bars  ^2rrb3  b?  'p^D-^  5  or  if  he  was  promoted, 
that  such  a  man  as  Daniel  could  accept  the  office,  and  discharge  its  duties.' 

That  the  Magi  had  a  supreme  head,  is  plain  from  Jer.  39:  3,  where  Ner- 
gal  Sharezer,  a  military  chieftain  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  is  named  ^  S'n  ,  i.e. 
arch- A  fag  tan.  So  Sozomen  (Hist.  Ecc.  II.  13)  speaks  of  ^iyag  uyzipayog. 
Berosus,  as  cited  by  Athenaeus  (Deipnos.  XIV.  44),  in  speaking  of  the  Sa- 
kea  (i.  e.  Saturnalian  feast)  of  the  Babylonians,  mentions  the  overseer  as 
being  arrayed  in  kinglike  robes,  and  as  called  ZMyuvrjs  (='];»&),  which 
means  praefect.  Diodorus  Sic.  says  of  the  priest  Belesys,  who  led  the  Baby 
lonians  in  revolt  against  Sardanapalus,  that  he  was  IMV  iiqsuv  ini<jrt^o^moq. 
Every  large  town,  province,  and  kingdom,  had  an  ag^i^ayoq^  Zend.  Av.  III. 
p.  226. 

That  a  foreigner,  by  special  favor  of  the  king,  could  be  introduced 
among  the  Magi,  seems  quite  probable  from  the  usage  of  the  Persians,  who, 
although  they  excluded  foreigners  in  general  from  that  order,  did  this,  as 
Philostratus  (in  Protagora)  asserts,  ftv  ^  o  ftaadivg  ap/J,  i.  e.  only  in  cases 
where  the  king  did  not  demand  his  admission.  The  Magi,  and  all  others, 
were  at  the  disposal  of  the  absolute  monarch,  either  in  Persia  or  in  Babylon. 
So  Brissoriius,  de  Regno  Pers.  II.  §  67,  68.  So,  likewise,  Moses  is  said  to 
have  been  "  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,"  being  the  adopted 
child  of  Pharaoh's  daughter,  Acts  7:  22.  Lengerke  however  says  :  "  We 
know  nothing  of  his  being  admitted  into  the  order  of  the  priests."  But  we 
do  at  least  know,  that  the  Egyptian  kings  and  princes,  as  a  matter  of  honor 
and  respect,  were  admitted  to  this  order ;  nor  is  there  any  probability  of 
Moses'  being  thus  instructed,  unless  he  had  been  admitted  into  that  order. 


EXC.  III.    ON   THE    CHALDEES.      CHAP.  II.    3.  41 

That  Daniel  was  a  Jew,  would,  so  far  as  we  know,  be  no  more  objection 
to  his  promotion,  in  the  eyes  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  than  if  he  had  been  a  for 
eigner  of  any  other  country.  This  king  does  not  seem  to  have  used  the 
Jews  more  roughly,  than  he  did  all  his  conquered  subjects.  That  Daniel,  as 
one  of  the  Magi,  was  made  a  civil  ruler,  i.  e.  Satrap  of  Babylonia  (Dan.  2:  48), 
as  well  as  Chief  Magian,  is  perfectly  in  accordance  with  oriental  usage  in 
general,  and  with  that  of  Babylon  in  particular,  Jer.  39:  3. 

1  But  it  must  awaken  great  doubt,'  it  is  said,  '  when  Daniel  is  described 
as  holding  the  office  of  chief  overseer,  over  priests  who  worshipped  Bel  and 
Mylitta.'  (Leng.  p.  50).  It  might,  I  am  ready  to  concede,  if  the  acceptance 
of  such  an  office  obliged  him  to  the  personal  performance  of  heathen  rites. 
But  it  should  be  remembered,  that  priests  were  only  a  portion  of  the  Magi. 
I  do  not  say  that  Daniel's  office  was  a  sinecure  ;  but  I  may  say,  that  there 
was  little  or  no  probability,  that  as  chief  Magian  he  was  subjected  to  per 
form  the  details  of  priestly  rites.  He  decided  cases  of  appeal  ;  prescribed 
general  rules  of  order  ;  participated  in  the  studies  of  the  Literati  ;  and, 
(which  seems  to  have  been  the  king's  special  object  in  promoting  him),  re 
ceived  the  honors  and  emoluments  attached  to  his  high  station.  Was  it  not 
quite  possible  for  an  intelligent  man,  so  situated,  to  avoid  participating  in  the 
details  of  heathen  worship  ?  The  whole  book  of  Daniel  shows  him  to  be  both 
conscientious  and  fearless.  His  station  must  have  subjected  him,  indeed,  to 
severe  trials  ;  but  it  also  afforded  him  great  opportunity  to  aid  his  exiled 
countrymen,  and  to  mitigate  the  severity  of  their  captive  state.  Reasonably 
may  we  suppose,  that  this  was  his  motive  for  accepting  the  office. 

Lengerke  represents  the  author  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  (who  in  his  view 
belonged  to  the  period  of  the  Maccabees),  as  '  evidently  introducing  Daniel 
among  the  Magi,  that  he  might,  by  his  interpretation  of  dreams,  elevate  the 
God  of  Israel  above  the  vanities  which  the  heathen  worshipped,'  (p.  51). 
That  the  narration  has  such  a  purpose  in  view,  I  would  readily  concede  ; 
but  that  the  whole  matter  is  a  mere  figment  of  a  sagacious  writer  in  the 
second  century  B.  C.,  in  order  to  accomplish  such  an  end,  is  an  assertion 
which  needs  some  proof.  The  ultima  ratio,  in  all  such  cases,  of  this  writer, 
and  of  others  who  sympathize  in  feeling  with  him,  is  plain  enough.  It  is 
simply  the  denial  of  all  supernatural  interposition  and  occurrences.  Against 
such  views,  the  present  volume  would  not  be  an  appropriate  place  for  argu 
ment.  The  N.  Test,  has  given  its  clear  and  decided  testimony  in  favor  of 
the  truthfulness  of  this  book.  A  consistent  man  who  renounces  the  book 
of  Daniel  as  a  record  of  true  history,  must  also  renounce  the  N.  Testament. 
My  own  belief  is,  that  the  God  who  made  the  world,  governs  it  ;  and  that  he 
can  interpose,  and  has  interposed,  in  respect  to  the  regular  and  established 
order  of  things,  where  special  purposes  were  or  are  to  be  accomplished 
that  cannot  well  be  brought  about  in  another  way. 

(3)  Then  said  the  king  unto  them  :  I  have  dreamed  a  dream,  and  my  spirit  is 
troubled  to  get  knowledge  of  the  dream. 


The  form  fiSBti  (=  dSSnn)  is  made  by  assimilating  the  n  ;  fi3>~  for  D?" 
because  the  tone  is  retracted.  Not  simple  agitation,  but  perturbation,  is 
designated  by  the  verb.  —  riSJ'ib  refers  to  both  a  knowledge  of  what  the 
dream  was,  and  of  the  interpretation  of  it. 

4* 


42  CHAP.  II.  3,  4. 

(4)  Then  spake  the  Chaldeans  to  the  king  in  Aramaean  :  O  king,  live  forever  ! 
Tell  the  dream  to  thy  servants,  and  we  will  then  show  the  interpretation  thereof. 


brii  ,  in  earlier  Hebrew  usage,  stands  mostly  absolute,  corresponding 
to  our  verb  speak;  while  "rax  (said)  is  followed  usually  by  the  words 
spoken,  making  an  Ace.  of  object.  But  in  Kings,  Ezek.,  and  Daniel,  it  is 
often  used  in  the  same  manner  as  "i^x  .  So  here  ;  but  in  such  a  way, 
however,  that  one  may  well  suppose  a  "raxb  to  ^e  supplied  after  tv^X  . 
—  Di^bS  ,  which  is  the  name  of  one  class  of  Magi  mentioned  in  v.  2,  is 
here  employed,  in  the  way  of  breviloquence,  as  a  designation  for  the 
whole,  or  it  is  used  par  excellence.  Doubtless  this  class  took  the  lead, 
among  the  Magi  ;  for  they  were  (of  course  as  it  would  seem)  the  speakers 
on  the  present  occasion.  —  K3^a  ,  stat.  emphat.  of  Tfcq  >  which  Segholate 
form  in  Chaldee  is  rare  except  in  the  biblical  Chaldee,  where  it  conforms 
to  the  Heb.Segholates  ;  the  usual  Chaldee  Segholate  form  would  be  as  r^  , 
in  most  cases  ;  Gramm.  §  34.  No.  IV.*  p.  94.  —  In  •j-nbs  the  learner  will 
notice  the  Chaldee  idiom,  which  often  employs  (T  )  instead  of  the  Heb.  (i)  ; 
so  in  the  Part.  Pres.  of  verbs,  and  in  many  other  cases  ;  which  shows  (as 
it  seems  to  me),  that  the  sound  of  Qamets  was  like  our  a  in  all;  §  33. 
Par.  III.  —  ^.tt  ,  Imper.  of  JOH  or  rnn,  Gramm.  p.  72.  —  8^3  >  stat* 
emph.  of  cbn  ,  which,  in  biblical  Chaldee,  thus  conforms  to  the  Heb. 
Segholates.  —  Tf1?-?^?  »  tne  Hebrew  note  on  the  margin  of  the  Bible 
says,  that  the  (i)  is  here  superfluous.  As  to  sound  it  is  so  ;  but,  although 
often  omitted,  it  is  often  retained  in  writing  the  biblical  Chaldee,  appa 
rently  as  an  index  pluralitatis  of  the  noun.  Here  the  root  in  the  Sing. 
takes  the  genuine  Chald.  Seghol.  form,  viz.  *V3$  ,  Gr.  p.  91.  IV.  b.  — 
X'rra  ,  stat.^emph.  of  "iizfB  ,  another  genuine  Chald.  Segholate,  Gr.  ib.  — 
awns  ,  Fut.  Pael  of  aoq  ,  Gr.  p.  73. 

Xenophon  (Cyrop.  VII.  5.  31)  describes  the  inhabitants  of  Babylon, 
when  it  was  taken  by  Cyrus,  as  speaking  J£vgt(m,  (comp.  Isa.  36:  11), 
by  which  the  same  language  seems  to  be  meant  that  is  indicated  by 
n*ra"iK  in  our  text.  —  The  salutation  Live  forever  !  is  truly  oriental  in  its 
style.  See  the  same  salutation  addressed  to  David,  1  K.  1:  31.  So  Ae- 
lian  (Hist.  Var.  I.  32)  represents  a  Persian  as  addressing  Artaxerxes 
with  fiaGilm  .  .  .  di  aiwvog  fiaailwols  !  So  Q.  Curtius  (VI.  5)  repre 
sents  Alexander  the  Great  as  being  addressed  by  Artabagus  :  "  Tu  qui- 
dem,  Rex,  perpetua  felicitate  floreas  !"  This  harmonizes  well  with 
"  king  of  kings,"  "  lord  of  the  world,"  "  light  of  life,"  and  other  court-like 
names,  by  which  the  oriental  sovereigns  were,  and  still  are,  commonly 

*  The  Grammar  referred  to  throughout  the  Chaldee  part  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  is 
that  of  WINER,  translated  by  Professor  Hackett  of  Newton  Theol.  Seminary,  and  pub 
lished  at  Andover  in  1845. 


CHAP.  II.  4,  5.  43 

addressed.  In  the  sober  language  of  common  life  it  would  run  thus  : 
May  your  life  be  very  long !  —  The  ancient  versions  seem  to  have  read 
PHBS  ,  (with  suff.),  i.  e.  the  interpretation  of  it,  viz.  the  dream  ;  and 
some  Codd.  read  IT^S ,  written  more  Hebraico,  the  like  of  which  is  fre 
quent  in  biblical  Chaldee. 

The  Chaldeans  seem  to  have  taken  it  as  a  thing  of  course,  that  the 
dream  would  be  first  told,  as  was  usual,  before  they  could  be  expected  to 
interpret  it ;  and  some  interpreters  maintain,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  told 
the  Magi  that  it  had  escaped  him,  merely  to  put  their  skill  to  the  test. 
But  the  context  seems  to  afford  no  room  for  such  a  supposition.  And 
when  it  is  asked :  Whether  a  forgotten  dream  could  trouble  the  king  ? 
one  may  reply :  Certainly  the  mind  could  be  greatly  agitated  by  seeing 
the  dream,  and  this  general  impression  might  remain  afterwards,  although 
the  particulars  of  the  dream  had  escaped  recollection.  Experience  of 
this  nature  is  not  unfrequent.  In  fact  it  is  easy  to  suppose  cases,  where 
the  agitation  would  be  even  increased  by  the  very  fact,  that  particulars 
were  no  longer  remembered,  and  the  relief  that  might  be  hoped  for 
could  not  therefore  be  so  readily  sought  in  the  way  of  obtaining  an  ex 
planation. 

(5)  The  king  answered  and  said  to  the  Chaldeans  :  The  word  is  gone  fiom  me,  if 
ye  do  not  make  known  to  me  the  dream  and  the  interpretation  thereof,  ye  shall  be 
cut  in  pieces,  and  your  houses  shall  he  made  a  dunghill. 

The  words  fi53  and  *ve!*  are  participles,  which  the  Chaldee  employs 
for  verbs  far  more  frequently  than  the  Hebrew;  Gr.  §  47.  §  11.  4.  — 
Sp"nb2lp  is  pointed  for  the  regular  marginal  reading  iN'rasb  ,  which  is  the 
regular  emphat.  pi.  (abbreviated  from  x*X1nto3)  of  the  sing.  ^£3  ,  a  for 
ma  gentilis,  Gr.  §  30.  b.  The  biblical  Chaldee,  instead  of  the  regular  form 
as  given  in  the  margin,  retains  the  (1)  of  the  gentile  ending,  and  reads 
X^b3;  see  2: 10.  5:  7,  also  the  like  endings  in  3:  2,  8.  Ezra  4:  9  (nine 
times),  12.  This  peculiar  biblical  form  is  simply  a  Syriasm,  e.  g. 

U%^>    (Kal-do-ye)  ;    see  Gr.  p.  96,  No.  VIII.  p.  91,  Par.  VIII. — 

nr^a ,  stat.  emph.  of  r&n  (=  &&T?  ).,  Gr.  p.  96.  2.  A.  It  may  mean  word, 
or  thing,  matter.  In  the  latter  sense  many  have  taken  it,  and  referred  it 
to  the  dream  of  the  king,  in  the  sense  of  forgetting  ;  a  possible,  but  not 
a  probable  sense.  —  N'ntx  ,  part.  fern,  from  the  masc.  form  TTX  ,  Gr.  §  12. 
1.  c  ;  used  only  here  and  in  v.  8.  Most  of  the  older  interpreters,  and 
many  of  the  modern  ones,  refer  ttrlbE  to  the  dream,  and  make  &WX 
equivalent  to  xbtx  (from  Vtx),  gone,  escaped.  More  recent  interpreters, 
(Ges.,  De  Wette,  Hav.,  Leng.),  compare  with  it  the  altogether  similar 
phraseology  in  Est.  7:  8.  Dan.  9:  23.  Isa.  45:  23.  Dan.  2:  13.  3:  29.  4: 


44  CHAP.  II.  6. 


3.  Ezra  6:  11.  So  Luke  2:  1,  Qfofa  doyfia.  The  meaning  is  :  'The 
matter  is  decided.'  The  I  and  r  sometimes  are  exchanged,  (comp.  da- 
XQVOV,  laeryma)t  see  Ges.  Lex.  1.  The  Rabbinic  phrase  quoted  by  Ge- 
senius,  viz.  rrvasab  K^iTS  ,  means  :  he  has  gone  off"[from  other  Rabbies]  to 
his  own  opinion.  Buxtorf  (Lex.  Chald.)  refers  only  to  Dan.  2:  5.  8  for 
authority  as  to  the  meaning  of  awts*  ;  which  is  little  more  than  assuming 
the  sense  of  the  word,  without  either  illustrating  or  proving  it.  In  case 
of  such  a  word  as  the  present,  which  is  almost  an  anaE,  hsyonwov,  the 
example  given  by  Gesenius  seems  to  be  sufficiently  decisive.  —  "jirt  ,  if, 
seems  at  first  view,  to  be  quite  a  departure  from  the  Heb.  meaning  (ecce) 
of  this  particle.  But  the  lexicon  will  show,  that  in  the  later  Hebrew,  an, 
num,  interrog.,  and  si,  if,  are  not  unfrequent  meanings  of  it.  —  xb  ,  not, 
affords  another  example  of  the  Hholem  in  Hebrew  (xb)  becoming  Qa- 
mets  in  Chaldee.  —  ^Sto'^iinn  ,  Fut.  Aphel  of  yr\  with  suff.  ;  for  in  the 
biblical  Chaldee,  X  ,  the  usual  formative  prefix  of  the  Chaldee  in  Aphel, 
is  commonly  written  tt  ,  and  this  formative  is  often  retained  in  the  Fut.  ; 
Gr.  §  12.  5,  p.  49,  and  see  in  Lex.  —  For  suff.  see  p.  58.  Rem.  1.  — 
WViJBsi,  with  masc.  suff.  relating  to  KTsbn,  see  §  8.  3,  in  parad.  of  Suff.  — 
•p'la^nn  "pE^ii  ,  lit.  ye  shall  be  made  pieces,  frusta,  fragments  ;  like  the 
Greek  [islij  noieiv,  2  Mace.  1:  16.  The  fi  before  nouns  in  Chaldee  is 
never  an  article,  (the  Chaldee  has  no  article),  so  that  it  is  always  to  be 
considered  as  a  radical  letter  when  not  a  formative.  The  verb  is  Fut. 
Ithpael,  pass,  of  Pael,  Gr.  p.  53.  1.  —  "p^ns  ,  plur.  of  rv;a  with  suff., 
being  irreg.  in  the  same  way  as  the  Hebrew.  —  "^i  ,  fern,  instead  of 
rnbi?  ,  the  n  of  the  fern,  forms  in  rv-  ,  n*i  —  ni  —  being  usually  omitted, 
Gr.T§  31.  1.  —  irately  ,  Fut.  of  osib  ,  in  Ithpeal,  Gr.  p.  G8.  Par.  —  Such 
a  punishment  as  is  here  threatened,  viz.  the  cutting  of  the  body  in  pieces, 
the  chopping  off  of  the  limbs,  and  the  like,  was,  and  still  is,  common  in  all 
the  barbarous  countries  of  hither  Asia,  in  Egypt,  and  in  ancient  Greece 
and  Rome.  Lengerke  has  accumulated  references  to  it.  As  to  the  threat, 
Your  houses  shall  be  made  a  dunghill,  it  is  unnecessary  to  urge  its  literal 
ly  exact  sense.  It  is  a  strong  expression  employed  to  indicate,  that  their 
houses  would  be  utterly  destroyed,  or  converted  into  ruinous  heaps 
which  were  employed  as  receptacles  for  all  manner  of  filth. 

(6)  But  if  ye  will  show  me  the  dream  and  the  interpretation  thereof,  ye  shall  re 
ceive  from  me  gifts  and  presents  and  much  honor  ;  therefore  show  me  the  dream 
and  the  interpretation  thereof. 

•pnnn  (teha-hhavon)  =  •j'iin.n  ,  Aph.  of  aon  ,  the  n  formative  in  Aph. 
being  retained  in  the  Fut.  (Gr.  p.  49.  5),  and  the  quiescent  1  of  the  suffix- 
formative  being  omitted  in  the  writing.  The  1  in  the  verb  is  radical  and 
movable,  (-von).  —  "ptya  ,  fern.  plur.  of  sing.  fern.  Wtra  .  —  '"^taji  >  prob. 


CHAP.  II.  7, 8.  45 

of  Persian  origin,  nuvaza  meaning  donation  in  that  language.  The  deri 
vation  from  the  Greek  vofUGfia  is  improbable  ;  for  this  means  coined 
money,  while  we  meet  with  no  notice  of  such  in  Babylon.  The  derivation 
from  tata  ,  by  prefixing  3  formative  and  omitting  the  second  f,  is 
rather  forbidding,  as  so  little  that  is  really  analogous  can  be  found.  Mau- 
rer  (Comm.)  derives  the  word  from  S3  3  =  2? 33 ,  to  gush  forth,  and 
!-Qt  =  3 JIT,  to  flow,  the  combination  meaning  copious  or  large  donations. 
For  the  form  1J3^ ,  see  §  34.  No.  II.  The  word  may  mean  splendor, 
honor,  or  (which  entitles  to  honor)  elevated  office.  Honor,  in  the  sense 
which  may  comprehend  the  latter,  seems  to  be  here  meant  —  at^ato ,  see 
§  28.  b.  10,  for  the  form.  —  ^ba^n  ,  Fut.  Pael.  —  ^i?"?  =  the  He 
brew  ^B1?  ,  i.  e.  the  suff.  pronoun  is  joined  with  the  plural  form  of  the 
word,  which  throws  out  i  (the  index  pluralitatis}  when  it  takes  the 
sufF.  i-  ,  which  in  pause  (as  here)  is  *•-  .  The  mode  of  expression  is  of 
the  intensive  kind,  meaning  that  all  which  is  promised  in  the  case  is  with 
in  the  king's  purview  or  in  his  possession,  and  therefore  is  ready  to  be 
bestowed.  For  the  form  of  it,  comp.  Dan.  2: 15.  5: 19.  7:  8,  10.  Ezra  7:  14. 
— b,nb  ,-lit.  on  account  of  this  =  therefore.  —  "^intt ,  Aph.  Imper.  plur., 
the  r;=X;  the  i  (yo)  =  ii;  and  13  is  a  verbal  suffix ;  comp.  Aph. 
p.  73.  Gramm. 

(7)  They  answered  again  and  said  :  Let  the  king  tell  the  dream  to  his  servants, 
and  we  will  show  the  interpretation  thereof. 

1'33  ,  3  plur.  Peal,  Gr.  p.  72.  —  nir^n  ,  adverbial  fern,  form,  out  of 
•£3Pi  .  —  TT?2*  >  Part.  plur.  instead  of  the  praeterite  verb,  §  47.  1.  — 
Tax?  ,  Fut.,  see  for  vowels,  §  21.  a.  —  irrissb  ,  for  suff.  to  the  plur. 
noun,  see  Gr.  p.  35.  Par.  2.  —  «"^nrn  ,  Fut.  Aph.  with  rt  retained,  p.  49.  5. 
—  The  demand  made  by  the  Magi  seems  to  be  one 'to  which  an  answer 
in  the  way  of  compliance  was  of  course  expected,  and  which  they  had  a 
right  to  expect  according  to  common  usage. 

(8)  The  king  answered  and  said  :  Of  a  certainty  I  know,  that  ye  are  seeking  to 
gain  time,  because  ye  see  that  the  word  has  gone  from  me. 

Four  participles  as  verbs,  viz.  ny ,  IEX ,  $*£ ,  "past  (plur.),  §  47.  1. 
The  latter  I  have  rendered  seeking  to  gain,  lit.  buying,  purchasing,  which 
however  can  here  have  only  the  meaning  that  the  version  represents, 
and  which  is  quite  of  a  different  tenor  from  either  Cicero's  emere  tejnpus 
(cont.  Verr.  1.  3),  or  the  expression  of  Paul :  xaigov  l^ayoQa&G&cu, 
Eph.  5:  16.  To  buy  time,  in  our  text,  means  to  procure  more  time,  i.  e. 
longer  delay.  —  K3^s? ,  stat.  emphat.  of  •j'ns ,  which  comes  from  the  root  TW 
and  has  a  formative  ]-  ,  comp.  §  28.  c.  20.  —  For  "ppst  "pfijix  used  as  a 
verb,  see  §  47. 1.  b.  —  The  threat  of  the  king,  with  the  consciousness  that 


46  CHAP.  II.  9. 

they  were  unable  to  satisfy  his  demand  on  the  spot,  made  the  Magi  de 
sirous  of  obtaining  a  respite,  during  which  they  might  perhaps  hit  upon 
some  expedient  to  extricate  themselves  from  their  very  unpleasant  dilem 
ma.  —  i-rj  bnp'bs ,  lit.  all  because  that  =  altogether  for  the  reason  that, 
an  intensive  of  the  simple  I'n  brsp  ,  because  that.  Such  accumulated  forms 
of  particles  are  frequent  in  Chaldee.  —  "pr^m  ,  Peal  of  Ktri .  For  the 
rest,  see  v.  5.  In  other  words, '  You  wish  delay,  because  I  demand,  on 
penalty  of  death,  that  you  should  give  the  requisite  information. 

(9)  But  if  ye  will  not  make  known  to  me  the  dream,  one  thing  is  your  purpose, 
both  a  false  and  deceitful  word  have  ye  agreed  to  utter  before  me.  until  the  time  shall 
have  changed  ,  therefore  tell  me  the  dream,  and  then  I  shall  know  that  you  can  show 
me  the  interpretation  thereof. 

•jrt  ^n  ,  apparently  =  quod  si,  for  ^  =  Trtf  in  Hebrew,  which  often 
stands  for  the  conjunctive  that.  But  this  will  make  no  sense  here,  unless 
we  refer  it  back  to  &OX  3H^  of  v.  8,  and  regard  it  as  coordinate  with  the 
clause  "ttl  wns  "^H  of  the  same  verse.  The  discourse  will  then  proceed 
thus :  '  I  know  that  ye  are  seeking  to  gain  time  —  [I  know]  that  if  ye  do 
not  make  known  the  dream,  ye  have  agreed  upon  one  purpose,  viz.  to 
deceive  me  by  '  false  and  deceitful  words.'  If  we  might  render  I'n  by  but, 
or  by  moreover,  it  would  apparently  relieve  the  difficulty  of  the  construc 
tion,  yet  not  really,  ^n  ,  however,  will  bear  neither  of  these  renderings. 
Rosenm.  says  of  it,  "  redundat,  ut  apud  Latinos  quod  in  quodsi.  So  Leng., 
quodsi.  In  his  German  version  he  gives  it  no  meaning,  but  merely  trans 
lates  "jn  ;  and  so  De  Wette.  This  is  cutting  the  knot,  but  not  untying  it. 
But  the  connection  proposed  above,  preserves  the  usual  meaning  of  ^ . 
That  the  clause  is  asyndic,  when  so  constructed,  is  no  objection,  in  a  book 
where  this  is  a  striking  trait  in  the  syntax.  —  ^|)2i3."ii!ntn  >  see  in  v.  5.  — 
rnn  fern,  of  "in,  written  in  the  Hebrew  manner  (as  usual  in  biblical 
Chaldee)  for  Kin ,  the  fern,  being  used  in  relation  to  ri  .  And  so 
with  ion ,  used  here  as  a  copula  =  it  is,  §  40. 1. 4.  in  =  the  Heb.  irx , 
and  is  formed  by  an  aphaeresis  of  the  K .  —  ni  usually  means  decree, 
placitum  ;  here,  however,  as  in  Syriac,  ==  voluntas,  purpose.  To  render  it 
decree,  statute,  would  make  no  tolerable  sense.  —  ill  nto  ,  an  epexe- 
getical  clause  more  fully  developing  what  immediately  precedes ;  so  that 
we  may  render  >i  by  namely,  even  ;  i-.^a  is  fern.  —  ^313  =  83*13 ,  (see 
nin  above  as  to  n  for  K),  fern,  of  ni3  ,  the  1  being  here  used  instead  of 
the  Hebrew  t  in  nT3,  see  Ges.  Lex.  under  t .  —  iir.^niB  ,  (i~i  for  K), 
fern,  of  the  Part,  passive,  used  as  an  adjective,  like  fi2"i3  .  —  "pfiSEtn ,  the 
vowels  belonging  to  the  Ithpael  form  or  Qeri  in  the  margin,  viz.  ^r.ps'ntn , 
in  which  the  formative  n  not  only  exchanges  place  with  t  radical  (in  "(Tat) 
but  becomes  a  1 ,  p.  29.  b.  But  there  is  no  need  of  the  proposed  emen- 


CHAP.  II.  10,  11.  47 

elation  in  the  Qeri,  for  the  Kethibh  makes  a  good  sense,  inasmuch  as  it 
is  in  Aphel,  and  should  be  read  accordingly,  V'W??^  .  The  two  vowels 
under  the  a  in  the  text,  indicate  of  course,  that  they  belong  to  an 
other  form  of  the  word.  —  ^^.  points  out  the  person  to  whom  the  lying 
words  are  specifically  directed  ;  the  form  is  that  of  plur.  regimen  or  suf 
fix,  §  38.  2.  b,  —  xsrya?  ,  Ithpael  of  aw*J  ,  the  n  formative  taking  the  place 
of  the  sibilant,  p.  29.  b.  —  snax  ,  Imper.  of  *nax  with  Fut.  (  _  )  ;  for  re 
taining  the  73  in  an  open  syllable  (instead  of  a),  see  p.  42.  6.  a.  Here 
the  word  is  used  in  the  sense  of  our  verb  tell.  —  S^px}  —  S^X  1st  pers. 
Fut.  Peal,  from  3H?  ,  the  3  epenthetic  being  put  instead  of  i-  ,  p.  30.  2, 
comp.  the  like  forms  in  2:  30.  4:  14.  The  Fut.  usually  takes  this  epen 
thetic  letter  (5).  —  "^inninn  >  w^n  su^-  nere  which  has  D  epenthetic  be 
fore  it;  see  the  form  in  v.  6.  For  its  potential  meaning,  see  p.  115.  3. 
c.  The  "OS-  at  the  end  of  the  verb,  is,  in  some  copies,  read  133-  ,  because 
of  the  Silluq. 

(10)  The  Chaldeans  answered  before  the  king  and  said:  There  is  no  man  on 
earth,  who  is  able  to  show  the  matter  of  the  king;  because  that  no  great  and  power 
ful  king  has  required  a  thing  like  to  this  of  any  sacred  scribe,  enchanter,  or  Chaldean. 


For  X1T33  see  v.  5.  —  irjix  =  the  Heb.  d?  ,  there  is,  a  form  sui  gene 
ris,  which,  as  in  Hebrew,  often  marks  its  subject  by  making  a  suffix  of 
it.  —  xniS2£  emph.  of  noa?  ,  an  unfrequent^form  in  Chaldee  ;  Gr.  p.  98. 
C.  Rem.  1.  —  biJJp  ,  Hophal  of  bs?,  which  Conj.  is  constantly  employed 
in  biblical  Chaldee  instead  of  Ittaphal,  p.  50.  6.  —  ^Tl^'?  >  1°^  -Apli.  with 
n  pref.  instead  of  x,  §49.  5,  and  ending  H-  for  N-,  as  is  common  in 
biblical  Chaldee.  —  >3  comes  to  mean  no,  none,  here  by  virtue  of  the  $b 
before  the  verb  that  follows.  For  the  epithets  E^di  rrn,  comp.  Isa.  36: 
4,  and  Ezek.  26:  7  —  king  of  kings.  —  rtba  ,  in  the  present  case,  means 
matter,  thing  ;  matter  of  the  king  means  '  matter  which  concerns  the  king,' 
or  '  matter  which  the  king  requires.'  —  ni'is  ,  like  this  (n-  for  x-  ),  §  9. 

1.  c.  p.  36.  —  Vxd  Peal  with  final  Tsere,  §  10.  2.     For  the  rest,  see  v. 

2.  Here  one  of  the  orders  of  the  Magi,  mentioned  in  v.  2,  is  omitted, 
viz.  o^BiSsa,  showing  that  the  usage  of  naming  a  part  for  the  whole  is 
continually  varying.     The  Chaldee  construction  admits  of  >  alter  the 
verb  and  before  the  person  asked. 

(11)  And  the  thing  which  the  king  requires  is  difficult;  for  there  is  none  other 
who  can  show  it  before  the  king,  except  the  gods,  whose  dwelling  is  not  with  flesh. 


^  of,  i.  e.  which  is  o/*  =  'ndx  .  It  is  a  sign  of  the  Gen.  of  the  noun 
that  follows,  and  allows  the  preceding  word  to  have  the  meaning  of  the 
const,  state,  while  it  retains  the  abs.  or  emph.  form;  §  56.  1.  — 


48  CHAP.  II.  12,  13. 

fern,  of  "PISH ,  grams,  weighty  —  in  the  sense  of  difficult  to  manage.  — 
*pnx ,  with  ")—  formative,  I  have  translated  other,  alius,  in  conformity  with 
general  usage.  Still,  it  might  be  doubted,  whether  it  is  not  a  noun  = 
m"inx  of  the  Hebrew,  signifying  the  future.  But  as  the  fern,  suffix  in 
ns-irn  does  not  relate  to  "^nx ,  but  to  XPibs ,  the  word  must  mean  another. 
The  Magi  did  not  mean  to  deny  their  power  to  disclose  the  future,  in 
case  the  dream  should  be  made  known  to  them.  —  In  tt|;irn,  Fut.  Pael 
of  Xin  ,  the  suff.  n-  is  augmented  by  the  epenthetic  3-;  p.  58.  Rem.  1. 

—  l^b ,  if  not,  except,  is  different  from  the  inb  in  vs.  6,  9,  where  it  comes 
from  b  and  in;  here  it  seems  to  be  a  compound  of  in  xb  =  if  not. — 
"pnbx,  in  the  mouth  of  the  Chaldeans,  must  mean  a  plurality  of  gods; 
for  in  such  they  believed,  inasmuch  as  they  worshipped  the  sun,  moon, 
and  all  the  planets,  besides  subordinate  deities  almost  without  number. 

—  Whose  dwelling  is  not  in  flesh,  I  understand  as  designating  the  dii 
majores,  and  indicating  their  immortal  nature,  in  opposition  to  the  frail 
and  decaying  nature  of  flesh.     The  apparent  sameness  and  perpetuity  of 
the  heavenly  bodies  seems  to  have  inspired  the  idea  here  expressed ;  for 
it  is  not  probable,  that  the  Magi  had  correct  philosophical  notions  of  pure 
spirit,  such  as  are  now  common  with  us.     For  IW'TO  ^ ,  whose  dwell 
ing,  see  §41.  1.  —  irrirvx  with  a  suff.  belonging  to  the  plur.  form  of 
nouns ;  which  is  usual  with  ^x ,  see  Lex.     The  IT  of  the  root  is  of 
course  dropped,  when  the  suffix  is  attached.     The  suff.  pron.  repeats 
here  the  subject  of  the  verb;  a  very  common  idiom  in   Chaldee ;  §61. 
In  English,  the  Chaldee  form  would  run  thus  :  Whose  dwelling  —  with 
flesh  it  is  not. 

(12)  Because  of  this,  the  king  was  angry  and  greatly  enraged  ;  and  he  gave  com 
mandment  to  destroy  all  the  wise  men  of  Babylon. 

For  W  bs,  see  on  v.  10.  —  nnninb,  Inf.  Aph.  (nT  for  XT)  of  inx,  § 
21.  —  bbb,  Ace.,  which  is  often  marked  by  b,  §  56.  2.  —  bsa  may  mean 
the  city  or  province  of  Babylon ;  but  the  former  is  most  likely  here. 
Strabo  testifies  that  the  Magi  lived  in  various  provincial  towns ;  and 
those  at  a  distance  were  not  the  immediate  object  of  the  king's  indigna 
tion,  on'  this  occasion. 

(13)  And  a  decree  went  forth,  that  the  wise  men  should  be  slain ;  and  they  sought 
Daniel  and  his  companions  to  slay  [them]. 

PpB3 ,  3  fern.  Peal,  with  Syriac  form  instead  of  the  proper  Chaldee 
n£53. —  'pb-j£r,E,  Part,  of  Ithpael,  interficiendi  [sunt].  —  "Warn,  PI. 
of  *nn  with  suff.,  p.  35.  2.  —  nbaprnb ,  n  pref.  and  suff.  for  x,  Inf.  of 
Ithpael ;  which  often  has  a  sense  like  the  Middle  Voice  in  Greek ;  §  10. 


CHAP.  II.  14.  49 

5.  The  Ace.  pronoun  (^2T  ,  them)  is  omitted,  and  must  be  mentally 
supplied  ;  the  Chaldee  shape  of  the  word,  however,  may  be  imitated  in 
a  translation  thus  :  For  the  being  killed,  in  which  case  the  suffix  pronoun 
^  unnecessary. 

(14)  Then  did  Daniel  prudently  and  wisely  answer  Arioch,  the  chief  of  the  exe 
cutioners  of  the  king,  who  went  forth  to  slay  the  wise  men  of  Babylon. 


nn  (n  for  s),  Aph.  of  aim  ,  p.  69.  Par.  —  xas  =  Heb.  nss  ,  coun 
sel,  prudence  ;  a  for  the  Heb.  2  ,  see  Lex.  2  .  —  DSIM  ,  sagacity.  Both 
nouns  are  in  the  Ace.  adverbial,  qualifying  the  preceding  verb.  One 
might  say,  that  a  is  implied  before  them  both  ;  but  there  is  no  need  of 
this  ;  §  37.  3.  b.  —  The  Chaldee  construction,  Tp'n&tb  .  .  .  a^rn  ,  may 
be  exactly  imitated  in  English,  viz.  replied  to  Arioch.  —  x^naa,  pi. 
emph.  of  na^  ,  see  form  in  §  28.  b.  6.  These  executioners  always  con 
stituted  a  part  of  the  body-guard  of  the  oriental  kings,  as  they  still  do  ; 
and  sentence  pronounced  by  the  king  was  often  executed  on  the  spot  by 
them,  in  presence  of  the  monarch,  when  the  criminal  was  before  him. 
Arioch  was  chief-executioner  ;  and  as  such,  he  went  forth  to  carry  into 
execution  the  sentence  of  the  king  against  the  whole  class  of  the  Magi. 
For  the  same  office  in  the  Egyptian  court,  see  Gen.  37:  36.  39:  1.  40: 
3,  4,  al.  ;  for  the  same  among  the  Babylonians,  see  Jer.  39:  9,  al.  It  is 
not  said,  on  the  present  occasion,  that  Nebuchadnezzar's  decree  against 
the  Magi  was  made  and  executed  on  the  spot.  Indeed  it  could  not  be, 
for  they  were  not  all  present.  They  were  probably  dismissed  by  him 
with  contempt  and  indignation  ;  and  these  feelings  gave  birth  to  the  de 
cree  that  speedily  followed.  Had  those  before  the  king  been  imme 
diately  killed,  the  writer  would  hardly  have  refrained  from  noting  it. 

It  deserves  consideration,  moreover,  that  Daniel  and  his  companions, 
although  belonging  to  the  order  of  the  Magi  (v.  13),  probably  were  not 
present  with  them,  when  they  had  this  interview  with  the  king.  The 
Hebrews  in  question  were  very  young  ;  and  diffidence,  as  well  as  an 
abhorrence  of  all  idolatrous  magic,  might  have  united  their  influence  to 
keep  them  back;  or  their  engagements  might  have  detained  them. 
They  might,  moreover,  not  wish  to  excite  the  jealousy  of  the  native  and 
older  magicians,  by  thrusting  themselves  into  the  company  of  court- 
counsellors  on  a  special  occasion.  Lengerke  (p.  62)  puts  their  absence 
to  the  account  of  the  writer's  sagacity  of  plan,  who  will  not  expose  them 
to  the  disgrace  of  a  failure  to  disclose  and  interpret  the  king's  dream. 
But  my  impression  is,  that  the  writer  is  quite  free  from  such  a  calcu 
lating  sagacity  as  this.  Whether  Daniel  is  a  real  or  an  imaginary 
character,  the  writer  of  his  life  does  not  appear  in  the  least  to  fear  his 

5 


50  CHAP.  II.  15,  16. 

being  brought  into  difficulties  or  dangers,  nor  does  he  dexterously  shun 
either. 

(15)  He  answered  and  said  to  Arioch,  the  king's  officer:  Why  this  urgent  decree 
from  the  king  ?     Then  Arioch  explained  the  matter  to  Daniel. 


Gen.  §56.  1.  —  n&^nnp,  Part.  Aph.  with  n  formative  re 
tained,  p.  49.  5,  fern,  in  reference  to  KM.  It  may  mean  severe,  cruel; 
but  it  is  hardly  probable  that  Daniel  would  speak  so  as  designedly  to 
communicate  this  idea,  before  Arioch  the  king's  confidant,  whose  favor 
he  wished  to  conciliate.  Hasty,  moreover,  is  a  shade  of  meaning  which 
is  of  the  reproachful  cast.  I  have  therefore  given  what  I  deem  to  be 
the  right  sense,  in  the  version.  —  ^"ix  ,  then,  prop,  the  pi.  form  of  iOX  , 
which  comes  from  iOX  ,  to  pass  on  or  ly,  preternt.  Particles  are  often 
formed  in  such  a  way.  —  SJ'iin  ,  Aph.  of  3H?  ,  §  20.  2.  c.  It  is  plain  from 
this  verse,  that  Daniel,  by  communing  with  Arioch,  could  come  to  be 
cognizant  of  all  that  had  passed  in  presence  of  the  king,  without  having 
been  personally  present. 

(16)  Then  Daniel  went  and  requested  of  the  king,  that  he  would  give  him  time  to 
show  the  interpretation  to  the  king. 


^5,  Praet.  Peal  from  b^  =  the  Heb.  xa,  §  19.  1.  1.—-^  for  ^, 
because  the  Maqqeph  shortens  the  final  syllable.  The  full  form  of  the 
Fut.  is  usual  in  biblical  Chaldee  ;  p.  59.  bott.  —  sniis  is  Ace.  placed  be 
fore  the  verb  n^infib  (Inf.  Aph.  with  form,  n)  ;  and  this  Inf.  stands  con 
nected  with  "pat,  in  the  way  of  explanation.  The  reason  for  requesting 
this  appears  in  the  sequel.  Whether  Arioch  went  with  Daniel  to  the 
king  or  not,  does  not  appear  from  the  text.  Others  in  attendance  on  the 
king  could  introduce  him,  (which  was  necessary  according  to  oriental 
custom),  and  it  seems  probable  that  Daniel  relied  on  the  favorable  im 
pression  before  made  upon  Nebuchadnezzar  (1:  18  —  20),  for  a  kind  re 
ception.  Lengerke  (p.  65)  thinks  it  possible  that  the  lapse  of  some  little 
time  had  abated  the  king's  violent  anger  ;  and,  as  Daniel  was  a  favorite, 
he  was  inclined,  on  his  account,  to  suspend  the  execution  of  the  decree 
against  the  Magi.  But  inasmuch  as  the  book,  (according  to  him),  is  so 
full  of  contradictions,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  interpreter,  as  he  sug 
gests,  to  assume  that  there  is  one  here  ;  for  first,  the  suspension,  as  he 
thinks,  would  be  very  unlike  Nebuchadnezzar  ;  and  secondly,  the  author 
of  the  book  needed  such  a  plan  to  bring  about  an  opportunity  to  display 
the  superiority  of  Daniel,  and  that  of  the  God  whom  he  worshipped. 
This,  however,  seems  to  be  reversing  the  common  laws  of  generous  crit 
icism  upon  authors,  which  prescribes,  that  where  they  can  be  reasonably 


CHAP.  II.  17,  18.  51 

conciliated,  they  should  be.  Besides,  what  is  more  mutable  than  the 
angry  passions  of  oriental  despots?  Did  not  Nebuchadnezzar  know, 
after  a  few  moments  of  reflection,  that  he  had  demanded  of  the  Magi 
what  all  the  world  would  regard  as  unreasonable  ?  And  what,  more 
over,  was  to  become  of  the  stability  of  his  throne,  if  a  universal  massa 
cre  of  the  Magi  were  attempted?  No  king  could  stand  before  them,  in 
such  an  exigency.  —  It  has  also  been  regarded  by  some  critics  as  vSry 
strange,  that  Daniel  makes  no  mention  here  of  showing  the  dream  itself, 
but  only  of  its  interpretation.  Does  not  the  latter,  however,  necessarily 
involve  the  former?  And  why  should  simple  breviloquence  in  a  writer 
be  put  to  the  account  of  mistake,  or  of  patching  together  two  different 
authors  who  varied  in  their  accounts  (Bertholdt  s.  62.  f.  194.,  f.),  or  of 
negligent  brevity  ?  (Leng.  p.  66).  Was  not  the  interpretation  the  main 
object  and  end  of  the  whole  ?  And  as  such,  may  it  not  easily  and  obvi 
ously,  by  a  usage  very  common,  stand  as  the  representative  of  the  whole  ? 

(17)  Then  went  Daniel  to  his  house,  and  made  known  the  matter  to  Hananiah, 
Mishael,  and  Azariah,  his  companions. 

The  position  of  the  Dat.,  or  Ace.,  or  both,  before  the  verb,  the  reader 
must  already  have  remarked,  is  uncommonly  frequent  in  this  Chaldee 
portion  of  Daniel ;  much  more  so  than  in  Hebrew.  Here  the  verb 
comes  last  of  all. 

-^  (18)  That  they  might  ask  for  compassion  before  the  God  of  heaven,  in  regard  to 
this  secret  matter,  in  order  that  they  might  not  destroy  Daniel  and  his  companions 
with  the  rest  of  the  wise  men  of  Babylon. 

•p wrn ,  like  the  corresponding  Heb.  word,  used  only  in  the  plural,  in 
the  sense  which  it  here  bears.  —  xsrrab ,  Inf.  Peal  with  b ,  lit.  for  [their] 
seeking.  As  the  Heb.  Inf.  with  b  often  stands  for  a  verb  of  definite  mood 
and  tense,  so  here  the  Inf.  appears  to  designate  the  same  idea  that  the 
3  pi.  would  express,  the  suff.  pronoun  3  plur.  being  implied  after  it,  as 
designating  the  subject  of  the  verb. —  God  of  heaven  resembles  the  Heb. 
God  of  hosts ;  while  this  latter  expression  occurs  not  in  the  biblical 
Chaldee.  God  of  heaven  means  either  the  God  who  dwells  or  reigns  in 
heaven,  (comp.  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven),  or  the  God  who  is  ex 
alted  over  all,  =  vipiazog.  God  of  hosts  =  almighty,  or  more  exactly, 
o  TinvTOXQUTcoQ.  —  xn ,  stat.  emph.  of  n.  —  Fi3i  this  or  that,  refers  to 
what  the  preceding  context  relates  of  the  forgotten  dream.  —  -(Snai'm , 
Fut.  Aph.  with  n  retained,  p.  49.  5.  —  -ix'r  retains  the  (  T  )  in  the  const, 
state  here ;  as  some  other  nouns  of  this  form  occasionally  do ;  §  34.  No. 
II.  a. 


52  CHAP.  II.  19,  20. 

(19)  Then  to  Daniel,  in  a  vision  of  the  night,  was  the  secret  revealed  ;  then  Dan 
iel  blessed  the  God  of  heaven. 


,  stat.  em  ph.  of  itn  ,  which  is  of  like  form  with  some  Heb.  Seghol. 
derivates  of  verbs  rib  .  The  ^  which  follows  before  the  Gen.,  renders 
the  const,  form  unnecessary.  —  ^b^b*  makes  one  and  the  same  abs.  and 
emph.  form  ;  which  is  not  unfrequent  in  other  cases  ;  §  32.  1.  The  old 
afis.  form  was  probably  ^b  ;  and  the  Hebrew  nearly  always  employs  nb^b 
for  b?b  .  —  ^ba  ,  in  v.  30  iba  ,  Part,  pass.,  with  a  comp.  Sheva  instead  of  a 
simple  one  ;  which  is  peculiar  to  this  participle  in  verbs  xb  ;  p.  74.  5. 
—  Revelation  by  visions  of  the  night  is  no  new  thing.  It  is  frequently 
spoken  of  in  the  O.  Test,  and  in  the  New.  —  -rpa,  Part,  in  Peal,  §  12,  1. 
c,  used  as  a  verb,  comp.  v.  8  with  four  participles  used  in  like  way,  and 
so  passim.  —  ttbxb  is  Ace.  §  56.  2. 

(20)  Daniel  answered  and  said:  Let  the  name  of  God  be  blessed  forever  and 
ever,  for  the  wisdom  and  power  which  is  his. 

rt32',  Part.  Peal  used  for  the  verb.  One  use  of  the  root  aw?  ,  as  of  the 
Heb.  T\y$  ,  is  to  designate  the  commencing  of  any  discourse  or  address, 
whether  strictly  in  the  way  of  answering  or  not.  The  German  anheben 
corresponds  to  this  ;  our  nearest  word  is  address  ;  and  where  this  will 
not  suit  well,  we  may  translate  began  discourse,  commenced  speaking,  in 
case  we  decline  the  old  translation,  answered.  —  fconb  ,  Inf.  with  b  ap 
parently,  but  used  repeatedly  in  this  chapter  and  elsewhere  for  the  3 
pers.  sing.,  and  so  with  (varying  form)  for  3  plur.,  ("prf?  v.  43).  For 
sing.,  see  also  Dan.  2:  28,  41,  45.  3:  18.  5:  29.  4:  22.  6:  3.  Ezra  7:  23, 
26,  al.  ;  for  3  plur.,  Dan.  6:  2,  3,  27.  Ezra  6:  10.  7:  25  ;  in  the  fern. 
Dan.  5:  17.  Now  as  this  prefixing  of  b  happens  never  to  the  second  and 
third  persons  of  the  verb  Kill  ,  but  only  to  the  third  sing,  and  plur.,  Beer 
(Inscriptt.  pap.  vet.  Semit.  p.  18  seq.),  and  after  him  Maurer  and  others, 
regard  the  b  in  this  case  as  a  peculiarity  of  the  Hebrew-Aramaean  at 
the  time  when  the  book  before  us  was  written,  and  they  compare  it  with 
the  J  added  to  the  Fut.  in  Arabic  =  ut,  and  also  with  the  3  which  is  the 

common  formative  prefix  of  the  3  pers.  of  the  same  tense  in  Syriac,  and 
often  in  a  portion  of  the  Chaldee  Targums.  Maurer  (Comm.  in  loc.)  has 
given  the  whole  passage  from  Beer.  Winer  seems  to  favor  this  view, 
Gramm.  p.  75.  Item.  2)  ;  and  I  know  of  no  better  solution  of  the  matter. 
That  the  examples  above  referred  to  are  not  in  the  Inf.,  is  plain  enough, 
both  from  their  meaning  and  their  form.  But  whatever  may  be  said  of 
the  forms,  the  meaning  at  least  is  plain.  —  In  Jrota  there  is  an  antici- 
pative  pronoun-suffix,  related  to  the  noun  that  follows  ;  lit.  the  name  of 
him  —  of  God.  This  idiom  is  very  common  in  Chaldee,  and  sometimes 


CHAP.  II.  21,  22.  53 


occurs  in  Hebrew  ;  §  40.  3.  a.  —  tpn-a  ,  pass.  Part,  of  Pael.  —  strraan 
and  srnsna  in  stat.  emph.  —  x^ri  fi5"n  =  "ib'T^is;  ,  §  41.  1.  Lit.  wisdom 
and  power  —  it  is  (son  §  40.  1)  to  him,  i.  e.  are  his.  The  pronoun  sing. 
(son)  refers  to  the  next  preceding  noun.  Wisdom  here  has  special 
reference  to  God's  knowledge  of  xn  ;  power  refers  to  a  might  or  ability 
to  overcome  difficulties,  however  great  they  may  apparently  be.  The 
idiom,  so  frequent  in  the  O.  and  N.  Test.,  exhibited  by  the  phrase  name 
of  God,  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  consciousness  of  men  that  they 
could  not  fully  and  directly  comprehend  what  God  in  himself  is,  and  so 
his  name  (mm),  designed  to  comprehend  all  that  is  known  and  unknown 
of  him,  is  often  put,  in  an  expressive  way,  for  all  which  it  imports  ;  see 
Cred.  in  Joel.  p.  220.  There  seems  to  be  a  degree  of  designed  intensity 
in  this  mode  of  expression. 

(21)  And  he  it  is  who  changeth  times  and  seasons,  who  removeth  kings  and  set- 
teth  them  up,  who  giveth  wisdom  to  the  wise  and  knowledge  to  the  intelligent. 


n  ,  and  he  it  is,  §  40.  1.  —  Wistr?  ,  Part.  Aph.  with  n  formative  re 
tained,  p.  49.  5.  Every  Part.,  if  no  subject  is  expressly  designated,  im 
plies  a  relative  pronoun  (=  6,  og,)  of  itself  for  a  subject.  We  might 
translate  simply  thus  :  and  he  changeth,  etc.  ;  but  the  version  given  is 
more  exactly  adapted  to  the  form  of  the  original.  —  Times  and  seasons 
(both  plur.  emph.)  difler  not  essentially.  Of  the  two  ^-J  is  the  more 
generic,  answering  to  %QOVOS,  "pst  to  xaiQot;.  The  change  here  referred 
to,  seems  to  be  that  from  a  season  of  great  danger,  to  that  of  the  hope 
and  prosperity  which  were  now  apparently  before  the  speaker.  The 
removal  of  kings  and  the  setting  of  them  up  I  should  refer,  in  the 
way  of  anticipation,  to  the  mighty  changes  in  monarchies  which  the 
dream  already  disclosed  to  Daniel  indicated.  Wisdom  to  the  wise  and 
knowledge  to  the  intelligent  refers  specially  to  what  had  been  imparted  to 
the  speaker,  so  as  to  give  him  a  knowledge  of  the  great  secret  in  ques 
tion.  Daniel  ascribes  all  his  peculiar  knowledge,  on  this  occasion,  to 
God  as  its  author.  —  MSftpB  ,  emph.  with  formative  a  instead  of  Dagh. 
forte  in  the  "i  ,  from  the  root  sn?  ,  p.  30.  2.  The  last  phrase  literally 
means  :  et  scientiam  cognoscentibus  intelligentiam,  i.  e.  intelligent  know 
ledge,  in  any  who  possess  it,  is  of  his  gift.  —  na^a  is  fern.,  and  not  masc. 
emph. 

(22)  He  revealeth  deep  and  secret  things;  he  knoweth  what  is  in  the  darkness, 
and  light  dwelleth  with  him. 

fc6a  and  3>T)  (Part,  for  verb)  mark,  more  strongly  than  the  verbs 
themselves,  what  belongs  to  customary  and  continued  action  or  state.  — 

5* 


54  CHAP.  II.  23,  24. 

Nr^"1-?. '  emPn-  pi-  °f  P"1??  > an  adjective  of  the  Part.  Peil  form.  — 
emph.  pi.  fern,  of  Part.  pass,  in '  Pael.  —  JCnna  in  Kethibh  should  be 
pointed  N^rtp ;  the  vowels  now  attached  to  it  are  appropriate  to  the  Qeri, 
sni'np.  The  reading  of  the  Kethibh  is  equally  good,  and  needs  no 
change,  as  both  forms  are  legitimate.  —  finis,  verb  with  final  (-).  The 
sentence,  carried  on  before  by  two  participles,  now  goes  forward  by  a 
verb.  This  usage  is  also  very  frequent  in  Hebrew.  —  This  verse  is  a 
repetition,  in  another  form,  of  the  leading  idea  of  the  preceding  one. 
"  He  who  gives  wisdom  to  the  wise,"  reveals  secrets,  and  discloses  what 
is  dark ;  which  he  can  easily  do,  because  he  dwells  in  light.  This  last 
clause  exhibits  a  sentiment  often  repeated  in  both  the  O.  and  N.  Test. 

(23)  Thee,  0  God  of  my  fathers,  do  I  thank  and  praise  ;  for  wisdom  and  ability 
hast  thou  given  me,  and  now  thou  hast  made  known  to  me  that  which  we  sought  for 
from  thee,  for  the  matter  of  the  king  hast  thou  made  us  to  know. 

T£  ,  Ace.  §  56.  2.  —  In  ftbsjj,  the  Chaldee  usage  of  putting  (T)  for  (i) 
is  very  plain;  for  the  Heb.  is  wfex. —  iprox,  suff.  plur.  irreg.  of  iX , 
§  35.  —  anjiJT? ,  Part.  Aph.  of  &n? ,  with  n  retained.  It  sometimes 
means  to  praise,  laud ;  but  when  joined  with  another  verb  (as  here) 
which  expresses  the  idea  of  praising,  it  is  equivalent  to  the  Lat.  graiias 
agere.  —  S^sa,  Peal  1st  plur.  of  XS3.  The  speaker  uses  this  person, 
because  he  and  his  associates  had  in  common  (vs.  17,  18)  sought  for  the 
disclosure  that  had  been  made.  —  ^,  like  "OK,  that  which.  The  next 
i1^  is  causal  in  its  sense,  because  that,  since.  —  Made  us  to  know,  like  the 
phrase  above  where  we  sought  is  the  mode  of  expression.  The  modesty 
and  humility  of  Daniel  seems  evident  in  all  this.  To  his  associates  as 
well  as  himself  he  ascribes  the  successful  supplications  that  had  been 
made ;  and  when  he  becomes  the  honored  instrument  of  disclosure,  he 
takes  no  special  credit  to  himself  for  this,  but  considers  it  as  equally  per 
taining  to  them. 

(24)  Because  now  of  this,  Daniel  werit  to  Arioch,  whom  ihe  king  had  appointed 
to  destroy  the  wise  men  of  Babylon,  he  went  and  spake  thus  to  him :  Destroy  not 
the  wise  men  of  Babylon  ;  bring  me  into  the  presence  of  the  king,  and  I  will  show 
the  interpretation  to  the  king. 

For  the  composite  conjunction  at  the  beginning,  see  under  v.  8.  The 
intensity  given  by  bs  to  the  conjunction  clause,  I  have  aimed  to  express 
by  now.  -*-b? ,  see  v.  16.  — 130 ,  Pael  of  MB .  —  lawb ,  Ace.  const.,  §  56. 
2.  —  btx  =  ^3? ,  resumes  by  an  equivalent  word  what  had  been  inter 
preted  by  the  preceding  exegetical  clause.  —  The  second  ^snb  is  also 
in  the  Ace.,  governed  by  the  verb  that  follows.  —  *$**%  >  Imper.  Aph.  of 
i&5,  Qamets  under  .1  because  of  the  Gutt.  which  follows,  §19.  1.  1.  b. 


CHAP.  II.  25,26.  55 

alone  is  here  again  named,  as  in  v.  16  above  ;  and  for  the  same 
reason  as  there,  viz.  that  of  breviloquence,  the  disclosure  of  the  dream 
itself  is  not  named. 

(25)  Then  did  Arioch  in  haste  bring  Daniel  before  the  king,  and  thus  spake  he  to 
him  :  I  have  found  a  man,  of  the  sons  of  the  captivity  of  Judah,  who  will  make  known 
the  interpretation  to  the  king. 


,  Inf.  noun  of  the  form  Ithpeal,  here  used  adverbially,  or  as 
a  noun  with  an  adverbial  sense,  like  nsp.rt  in  Hebrew.  —  ^j?3n  for  bsnj, 
Aph.  of  bbs  ,  the  3  being  inserted  to  compensate  for  the  long  vowel 
•which  is  dropped  ;  §  19.  1.  1  ad  finem.  —  itj  is  here  merely  the  sign  of 
words  quoted,  as  ^3  often  is  in  Hebrew,  and  'oil  in  Greek  ;  so  in  5:  7. 
6:  6,  14.  It  is  translated  sufficiently,  by  any  sign  which  marks  words  as 
quoted.  —  rins'Jn  ,  Aphel  of  nasj  ,  the  ending  (-  -  )  being  occasioned 
by  the  final  Guttural  ;  p.  53,  verbs  3  Gutt.  Without  a  Gutt.  ending,  these 
vowels  would  be  (--:)•  —  xriba  ,  fern.  emph.  of  niba  ,  captivity,  exile; 
abstract  for  concrete.  —  "Pirn  ^  ,  of  Judah,  is  added  to  distinguish  these 
exiles  from  others  at  Babylon,  brought  from  foreign  countries,  or  possibly 
to  distinguish  Daniel  from  the  native  Magi.  Lengerke  (p.  72)  thinks  the 
writer  has  here  been  guilty  of  a  VOTEQOV  TIQOIEQOV,  inasmuch  as  he  makes 
Arioch  introduce  Daniel  to  the  king,  before  he  mentions  who  he  is.  Is  it 
then  certain,  that  such  a  special  confidant  of  the  king,  as  Arioch  plainly 
was,  might  not  venture  to  take  Daniel  with  him,  and  tell  the  king  whence 
he  was,  when  standing  with  him  in  the  royal  presence  ?  Lengerke  has 
even  cited  a  long  passage  from  the  Greek  commentator,  Polychronius, 
which  descants  on  this  "  inversion  of  order  ;"  whereas  it  is  plain  enough, 
that  the  whole  thing  might  have  depended  on  the  familiarity  of  Arioch 
with  the  king,  and  also  on  the  well  known  favorable  regard  of  the  king 
for  Daniel.  How  much  one  may  sometimes  see,  when  he  is  on  the  watch 
for  the  halting  of  a  writer  whom  he  strongly  suspects  ! 

(26)  The  king  answered  and  said  to  Daniel,  whose  name  was  Belteshazzar  :  Art 
thou  able  to  make  known  to  me  the  dream  which  I  have  seen,  and  the  interpretation 
thereof? 


1  ,  whose  name,  the  1*1  showing  the  relative  sense  of  the  fi- 
that  follows,  like  "nax  in  Hebrew  ;  §  41.  1.  —  iBNttJaba  ,  ba  =  Belus  ; 
tsha,  a  sign  of  the  Gen.  in  the  Zend  ;  ^s  ==  prince  ;  and  so  prince  of  Be 
lus,  which  means  either  noble  or  exalted  prince,  or  else  prince  ivhom  Belus 
favors  or  protects.  The  first  syllable  is  closed,  and  yet  the  vowel  is  long 
and  without  the  tone  ;  the  laws  of  the  Hebrew,  in  this  respect,  apply  but 
partially  to  the  Chaldee.  •  The  reason  why  this  epithet  is  here  added  to 
the  usual  name  of  Daniel  seems  to  be,  to  remind  the  reader  that  the  king 


56  CHAP.  II.  27,  28. 

himself  had  imposed  this  name  (1:  7),  and  that  the  favor  of  the  king,  on 
this  occasion,  might  in  part  be  owing  to  his  acquaintance  and  familiarity 
with  Daniel.  —  "rpr^xn ,  ii  interrog.,  the  suff.  Tp--  has  the  form  of  a  suff. 
to  the  plural,  and  here  indicates  the  subject  of  in^x  ;  S£e  Lex. — 
bri3  Part.  pres.  =  potens.  —  "^nwninb ,  Inf.  Aph.  of  $*V] ,  the  Inf.  with 
suff.  assuming  the  termination  ni-,  while  the  suff.  is  ^-;  p.  56.  e.  — 
rvnn  ,  Feal,  1st  Sing,  of  KTH  ,  p.  72.  Par.  Nebuchadnezzar  speaks 
of  the  dream  which  he  saw,  because  the  main  object  presented  to  his  vision 
in  it  was  the  gigantic  image  or  statue. 

(27)  Daniel  answered  before  the  king  and  said  :  The  secret  which  the  king  asks 
for,  no  wise  men,  enchanters,  sacred  scribes,  astrologers,  are  able  to  show  to  the  king. 

Four  participles  in  this  verse,  all  having  the  sense  of  verbs  —  for  even 
•pbs'j  is  pi.  part,  of  ^  ;  the  pi.  verb  would  read  sfca1?  .  —  For  the  first 
three  nouns  which  are  denominatives  here,  see  on  v.  2  above.  —  V^tjJ,  par- 
ticip.  noun,  probably  from  "in  to  cut,  divide  ;  for  the  astrologers  divided 
the  heavens  into  different  sections,  each  having,  as  they  viewed  the  mat 
ter,  an  appropriate  significancy.  Gesenius  (Comm.  Es.  s.  353)  has  given 
a  figure  exhibiting  this  division,  as  before  exhibited  by  Briicker,  Hist. 
Philos.  I.  p.139.  This  illustration  of  the  word  can  hardly  fail  to  be  satis 
factory.  —  fi^n.rfp ,  Aph.  Inf.  with  in  for  x ,  as  frequently  before.  In 
this  declaration,  Daniel  shows  a  sympathy  with  the  Magi,  on  account  of 
the  violence  done  to  them  by  the  king's  making  a  demand  on  them  of  that 
which  was  beyond  their  power.  He  endeavors  to  convince  the  king  of 
the  unreasonable  nature  of  the  demand,  by  showing  him  the  impossibility 
on  their  part  of  complying  with  it.  At  the  same  time,  an  excellent  oppor 
tunity  is  afforded  him  to  vindicate  the  superior  claims  of  the  God  of  Is 
rael  ;  which  he  manfully  and  nobly  uses  to  the  best  advantage.  He 
must  surely  have  possessed  great  firmness  and  presence  of  mind.  Len- 
gerke  intimates  more  than  once,  that  the  whole  of  this  narration  is  made 
up,  by  preconceived  design,  in  order  to  impress  the  moral  truths  which  it 
inculcates ;  for  he  plainly  discards  all  ideas  of  the  supernatural,  at  any 
time,  or  on  any  occasion.  My  views  of  Revelation  lead  me  to  a  very 
different  conclusion. 

(28)  But  there  is  a  God  in  heaven,  who  revealeth  secrets,  and  he  hath  made  known 
to  the  king  Nebuchadnezzar,  what  shall  take  place  in  the  latter  days.     Thy  dream, 
even  the  visions  of  thine  head  upon  thy  couch,  was  this. 

KIEIS  ,  pi.  emph.  of  'pBiB  ,  destitute  of  a  sing,  form,  and  like  the  Heb. 
n^d  .  The  idea  of  KJiaisa  seems  here  plainly  to  be,  who  dwells  in 
heaven,  in  distinction  from  the  visible  and  idol* gods  which  Nebuchadnez 
zar  worshipped.  —  "p.1} ,  here  used  in  a  generic  sense,  i.  e.  secrets  of  any 


CHAP.  II.  29,  30.  57 

kind,  or  of  all  kinds  —  a  more  expanded  idea  than  that  of  $n  above, 
which  there  means  the  concealed  dream  of  the  king.  —  rra  fully  expressed 
would  mean  what  is,  and  TH  that  which.  I  have  compressed  them  in  the 
translation.  —  aorib  ,  see  under  v.  20.  —  N^is'P  rvnnxa  ,  not  a  generic 
expression  for  any  subsequent  or  future  time,  as  De  Wette  and  Haver- 
nick  assume,  but  latter  portion  of  days  =  the  Messainic  period,  and  not 
to  be  explained  by  nan  -nnx  in  v.  29.  The  like  to  this,  in  Gen.  49:  1. 
Num.  24:  14.  Deut.  4:  30  ;  the  same  as  our  text,  in  Isa.  2:  2.  Mic.  4:  1. 
prob.  Jer.  48:  47  ;  com  p.  iri  sV/arov  TCOV  T^HQKIV  in  Heb.  1:  1,  et  al.  in 
N.  Test.  Lengerke  says,  that  only  the  commencing  part  of  this  last  age 
of  the  world  is  meant.  If  merely  the  distinctive  mark  between  the  pre 
ceding  age  and  the  latter  were  the  object  in  view,  this  would  be  correct; 
but  the  things  predicted,  in  connection  with  this  n^nx  ,  cannot  all  be 
developed  at  its  commencement.  The  sorn  11  shows  the  conviction  of 
the  speaker,  that  the  God  who  foretells  will  surely  accomplish  what  he 
foretells.  —  •vim  pi.  const,  of  itn  ,  visions  of  thine  head  means  conceptions 
or  notions  which  are  formed  in  the  brain,  the  seat  of  thinking.  Here 
the  phrase  is  merely  exegetical,  and  designed  to  show  that  the  dream 
was  occasioned  by  the  operations  of  the  mind.  The  sing.  tKUft  fin  shows 
of  course  that  7^?n  'ls  treated  as  the  real  subject  of  the  sentence.  Comp. 
for  the  phraseology,  Dan.  4:  2,  7,  10.  7:  1. 

(29)  Thou,  0  king,  —  thy  thoughts  upon  thy  bed  came  up,    [as  to]  what  will  be 
hereafter;  and  he  who  revealeth  secrets  hath  made  known  to  thec  what  shall  be. 


'  su^'>  P*  *^»  ^  ^ar*  These  thoughts  appear  to  refer  to 

the  meditations  of  Nebuchadnezzar  before  sleep  came  on  him.  If  he  had 
been  dwelling  in  his  mind,  as  is  probable,  on  the  subject  of  the  future 
condition  of  his  conquests,  fame,  and  kingdom,  it  was  a  good  preparation 
to  make  the  dream  impressive.  The  form  sipbo  I  do  not  regard,  with  Ge- 
senius  (in  Lex.),  as  a  Part.  pass,  or  Peil  (see  Gramm.  p.  51),  but  as  a 
verb  3  pi.  Peal,  from  the  root  pbo  or  pbo  ,  (which  also  has  pb&  ),  like 
a^p  and  i"]p,  p.  48,  comp.  §  12.  1.  Came  up,  alluding  to  ascension  to 
the  brain.  —  xinb  twice  here,  see  v.  20.  —  xba  ,  Part,  used  here  as  a 
noun  in  the  construct  state,  the  Qamets  being  immutable,  see  p.  91.  Par. 
VII.  a.  —  in  rra  again  as  in  v.  28. 

(30)  And  I  —  not  by  wisdom  which  is  in  me  above  all  the  living,  is  this  secret  re 
vealed  to  me,  but  that  the  interpretation  may  be  made  known  to  the  king,  and  that 
thou  mightest  know  the  thoughts  of  thine  heart. 

1350  and  I,  Nom.  abs.,  as  often  in  Heb.  and  Chaldee.  —  'ja  ,  here  used 
as  when  marking  the  compar.  degree,  =  above,  more  than.  —  N^n  (hay- 
yay-ya),  emph.  pi.  of  "p^n  ,  living  creatures  or  living  men;  more  proba- 


58  CHAP.  II.  31,32. 

bly  the  latter  here.  —  ^a,  for  the  pointing,  see  on  v.  19.  —  ^  rvni'n  ^3?  , 
because  that,  lit.  cm  account  of  the  matter  that,  rns'n  is  of  the  const,  form, 
and  the  whole  clause  that  follows  is  virtually  a  Gen.  after  it.  —  •jwris-n  , 
lit.  that  might  make  known,  etc.  The  3  plur.  is  often  employed,  as  here, 
with  an  indefinite  subject,  (and  so  in  Hebrew),  and  thus  it  comes  to  be 
equivalent  to  i\iv  passive  voice;  comp.  §  49.  3.  b.  See  the  like  in  Dan. 
3:4,21.  4:13,22,23.  5:21.  7:  9,  12,  13,  26,  al.—  The  thoughts  of  thine 
heart  here  means  the  same  as  the  visions  of  the  head  in  v.  28.  The  He 
brews,  like  us,  could  refer  both  to  the  head  and  heart  as  local  sources 
whence  thoughts  come.  —  SjTpn  ,  p.  30.  2. 


(31)  Thou,  O  king,  wast  looking,  and  behold  !  a  great  image;  this  image  was  lofty, 
and  the  splendor  of  it  excessive  ;  it  stood  before  thee,  and  the  appearance  of  it  was 
terrible. 

nnsx  ,  i.  e.  (as  the  Kethibh  should  read)  SiPiSX  ,  for  which  the  Qeri  has 
substituted  the  more  usual  form  !n35<  .  The  former  is  the  Hebraizing 
Chaldee,  and  no  valid  objections  can  be  made  against  it.  —  r^n  ntn  the 
Part,  with  the  verb  x*  _;  (to  be),  here  appropriately  designating  the  con 
tinuance  of  the  action,  §  47.  1.  a.  The  Part,  is  specially  adapted  to  such  a 
purpose;  as  one  may  see  in  Dan.  5:  19.  7:  2,  2,  4,  G—  9,  11,  13,  21.  8: 
5,  al.  —  sfex  seems  to  be  the  same  as  *nx  ,  the  b  and  *i  being  exchanged  ; 
which  is  not  unfrequent.  Possibly  the  latter  comes  from  an  inversion  of 
!|&n  ,  of  the  root  fiX'n  to  see.  Or  perhaps  S&K  is  simply  an  adverbial  form 
from  the  demonst.  pronoun  rfes*  ,  those,  these,  and  so  means  there  =  see 
there  ;  just  as  nsn  ecce,  comes  from  a  demonstrative  pronoun,  in  Hebrew. 
The  later  derivation  seems  to  me  more  probable,  on  the  ground  of  anal 
ogy.  Coupled  with  the  preceding,  it  reminds  us  of  the  udov  y.al  idov  of 
John  in  the  Apocalypse.  —  ^n  corresponds,  as  in  later  Heb.,  to  our  in- 
def.  article  a,  an  ;  so  tig  in  the  N.  Test.  —  ^  I  have  translated  lofty, 
because  the  word  indicates  extensiveness  in  any  direction.  In  Heb.  it  is 
said  of  a  long  way,  1  K.  19:  7,  and  of  long  continued  attention,  Isa.  21:  7  ; 
and  it  is  not  probable  that  the  simple  idea  of  magnitude,  marked  before 
by  tf'1^  ,  would  be  repeated  again  so  soon.  The  sense  I  have  given  to  S'n 
is  evidently  appropriate.  So  Leng.,  hoch.  —  l^t  (ziv)  from  hfit  to  shine, 
the  first  rt  of  the  root  conforming  to  the  vowel  which  precedes,  the  second 
n  is  dropped,  and  the  original  1  of  the  root  (verb  ib)  resumed.  — 
QX£  ,  Part,  of  dip  ,  see  Par.  p.  68.  —  wn  ,  n-  suff.,  ij  (rev),  for  ibp.  , 
from  iisn  to  see.  The  whole  verse  forms  a  simple  but  very  graphic  de 
scription. 

(32)  This  was  the  image  —  its  head  was  of  pure  gold  ;  its  breast  and  arms  of  sil 
ver  ;  its  belly  and  thighs  of  brass. 

'n  ,  the  Gen.  of  material.      Strictly  considered,   however,   the 


CHAP.  II.  33,34.  59 

noun  diO  is  mentally  supplied  before  this  ;  and  the  like  in  respect  to  the 
following  Genitives.  —  3U  good,  applied  to  gold,  of  course  means  pure. 

—  ^frnn,  pi.  witK  suff.,  from  "p^n,  plural  because  the  breast  is  biform. 

—  ^rii^"n"i^ ,  in  the  same  way  as  the  preceding,  the  pi.  being  employed 
because  the  Chaldee  has  no  dual.  —  "Wsa,  pi.  of  "pSB.-*-  ttr2rn,  suff. 
pi.  fern,  of  ro^  .     As  to  the  suff.  n-  instead  of  "Tji —  as  before,  see 
Gramm.  p.  36,  top.     The  plur.  fern,  often  takes  suffixes  which  belong 
to  the  sing.,  because  the  form  is  too  well  marked  to  be  mistaken.     So 
in  the  Syriac. 

(33)  The  legs  were  of  iron,  the  feet  partly  of  iron  and  partly  of  clay. 

•'iripa ,  suff.  pi.  of  piiJ  (=  Heb.  piizj)  leg.  —  •'tt'ftjn ,  suff.  pi.  of  bin  or 
bin  .  —  V'1?7? ,  so  the  Kethibh  should  be  pointed ;  but  the  vowels  in  the 
text  are  designed  for  the  Qeri,  which  reads  "jnsE  fern.  plur.  because  bin 
(the  antecedent)  is  feminine.  Yet  many  nouns  (and  perhaps  this  one)  are 
of  the  common  gender.  ^  is  the  const,  of  fq ,  part  or  portion.  It  is 
quite  plain,  that  the  different  materials,  which  constituted  the  different 
parts  of  the  gigantic  image,  are  designed  to  symbolize  different  dynasties ; 
and  that  the  last,  the  extreme  lower  part  of  which  is  a  mixture  of  iron 
and  clay,  (besides  the  divisions  of  the  toes  in  the  feet),  is  designed  to 
symbolize  a  very  heterogeneous  and  mixed  domination. 

(34)  Thou  didst  continue  looking,  until  a  stone  was  cut  out  without  hands,  and 
it  smote  the  image  on  its  feet  of  iron  and  clay,  and  crushed  them. 

•n  15  ,  lit.  until  that,  i.  e.  until  the  time  when.  This  shows  that  the 
cutting  out  of  the  stone,  and  its  action  upon  the  image,  were  subsequent  to 
the  complete  formation  of  all  parts  of  the  image.  It  is  of  importance  to 
note  this  circumstance,  as  it  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  explanation 
of  this  compound  symbol.  —  ^"iTSr^,  Hebraizing  form  of  3  fern.  Ithpeal. 
A  common  form  here  would  be  rntarfi ,  (p.  49.  2)  ;  but  the  double 
Seghol-ending  is  very  common  in  verbs  which  end  in  "i ,  and  so  here  we 

have  rnt  —  for  rnt  — ,  p.  53.  3d  Gutt.  3.  —  Kb"1? ,  lit.  which  was  not  = 

o 
without.    So  in  Syriac,  Jl?  (d('lo),  without.  —  "j^T?  ?  Hebraizing  dual  form 

of  "n ,  with  3  prefix  prep.  The  proper  Chaldee  has  no  dual.  Only  a 
few  forms  of  this  kind  find  a  place  in  the  biblical  Chaldee  ;  §  31.  2.  — 
nrra ,  3  fern.  Peal  of  xrro ,  p.  72.  —  xs&n  emph.  form  of  r.bn  in  v.  33.  — 
np'-rn ,  3  fem.  Aph.  of  pp'n ,  the  reg.  and  proper  Chaldee  form  would  be 
nj^x  (p.  63),  but  the  n  prefix  is  Hebraistic  (p.  49.  5),  and  the  Segholate 
form  npn  -  shows  the  tendency  to  Hebraize  in  the  terminations  of  these 
fem.  forms ;  comp.  p.  49.  3.  4.  —  Without  hands  plainly  means,  without 
human  power  or  aid,  the  hand  being  the  common  symbol  of  power ; 


60  CHAP.  II.  35. 

comp.  Dan.  8:  25.  Job  34:  20,  for  the  like  expressions.  —  r-js'nft  is  a  very 
strong  expression  ;  for  it  designates,  more  appropriately,  the  crushing  of 
grain  in  a  mill.  That  the  force  of  expression  is  fully  "transferred  here, 
is  evident  from  the  next  verse,  which  represents  the  crushing  to  be  so 
complete,  that  the  wind  takes  away  that  which  has  been  crushed,  as  it 
does  the  chaff  of  a  threshing  floor.  The  blow  of  the  stone,  although  it 
directly  fell  upon  the  feet  of  iron  and  clay,  was  so  vehement,  that  the 
whole  image,  by  violent  concussion  and  consequent  fall  was  reduced  to 
powder.  Whatever  the  four  kingdoms  in  reality  were,  which  in  this 
case  are  symbolized,  one  thing  is  clear,  viz.  that  the  stone,  when  it  makes 
its  appearance  and  falls  upon  them,  utterly  annihilates  them  all.  So 
much,  at  all  events,  lies  on  the  very  face  of  the  symbol  in  question. 

(35)  Then  were  crushed  at  once  iron,  clay,  brass,  silver,  and  gold,  and  they  be 
came  like  chaff  of  the  summer  threshing  floor,  and  the  wind  look  them  away,  and  no 
place  was  found  for  them  ;  and  the  stone  which  smote  the  image,  became  a  great 
mountain,  and  filled  all  the  earth. 


1^X2  ,  the  first  vowel  being  a  contracted  one,  from  the  original  "P1&B  » 
lit.  in  the  then,  i.  q.  -then.  —  sip'n  ,  root  ppn  ,  with  long  vowel  under  *j  as  a 
compensation  for  Dagh.  f.  omitted  in  p;  §19.  1.  b.  —  f^ns,  adv.  com 
pounded  of  a  and  fTin  =  N'ln  ,  which  is  either  fern,  or  emph.  of  Tn  .  In 
the  four  nouns  that  follow,  the  emph.  form  of  all  shows  an  implied  arti 
cle,  (so  in  v.  24),  since  in  v.  33  they  take  the  simple  absolute  form.  The 
asyndic  construction  here  is  also  remarkable  ;  but,  as  has  already  been 
noted,  it  is  frequent  in  this  book.  Here  it  is  in  good  taste,  also,  for 
all  the  parts  named  are  closely  connected  in  one  whole.  —  lhn,  3  pi.  Peal 
of  rnn  ,  here  (as  often)  meaning  became.  —  ^y  ,  chaff,  need  not  be  de 
rived  from  ito  to  blind,  nor  from  IBS  dust,  (whence  1W  ,  Ges.),  because 
chaff  blinds  one  when  blown  in  his  eyes,  or  dust  produces  the  same  effect. 
This  is  too  fanciful.  It  seems  to  be  plainly  allied  to  113?  skin,  i.  e.  of 
men,  while  "rt3>  (distinguished  merely  by  the  mode  of  pointing)  is  the 
cuticle  of  grain;  both  words  being  from  *ns?  nudusfuit.  —  ^x  ,  const. 
pi.  of  Tnx  ,  which  is  probably  from  ti3,  excidit,  to  fall  out,  as  grain  from 
the  sheaf.  —  2?p  =  the  Heb.  "pp  ,  summer,  irreg.  Segholate,  §  29.  5.  b. 
—  j<b  .  .  .  ba  ,  no,  none.  —  nanwi  ,  Ithpeal,  with  us  radical  transposed,  §  10. 
5.  b.  —  rnn,  3  fern.  Peal  of  &nn,  the  usual  form  would  be  rnn,  p.  72, 
Peal.  But  sometimes  the  fern,  here  imitates  the  fern,  in  the  other  con 
jugations  (which  is  nT)  ;  see  rrj^  ,  Dan.  4:  19.*  —  -inab  =  Heb.  -ira  ,  and 
b  Kin  means  to  become,  in  Chaldee,  in  the  same  way  as  in  the  Hebrew. 
contracted  for  ni6?a  (see  p.  53.  3d  Gutt.  3),  K  being  here  a 


*  This  remark  is  omitted  in  Gramm.  p.  74. 


CHAP.  II.  36,  37,  38.  61 

Gutt.  in  the  root,  and  not  a  mere  Quiescent.  —  SW1?^,  emph.  of  S^x  = 
Heb.  y^x  .  This  word  exhibits  the  transmutation  of  the  Heb.  2  into  the 
Chald.  >•  ;  an  occurrence  not  very  unfrequent. 

The  reader  must  not  suppose,  that  all  the  four  monarchies  are  symbolized  here  as 
coexisting  and  contemporaneous,  when  the  final  blow  is  given.  The  explanation  in  the 
sequel  shows  plainly,  that  they  are  successive.  But  inasmuch  as  one  dynasty  went 
over  into  another,  in  regular  succession,  the  last  became  the  tout  ensemble  and  repre 
sentative  of  the  whole.;  and  when  it  was  smitten,  in  a  certain  sense  all  perished  to 
gether.  One  thing  should  he  specially  noted  here.  viz.  that  an  end  of  all  is  made, 
when  the  fifth  kingdom  begins  to  he  setup.  So  the  text:  "  They  were  crushed  at. 
once  or  altogether,  the  iron,  clay,"  etc.  Their  utter  destruction  is  most  graphically  de 
scribed,  by  the  subsequent  image  of  chaff  blown  away  by  the  wind.  No  place,  there 
fore,  is  found  for  them. 

(36)  This  is  the  dream  ;  and  the  interpretation  thereof  will  we  now  declare  before 
the  king. 

Tax3  ,  §  21.  Daniel  again  includes  his  companions  with  himself;  for 
this  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  1st  plur.  here.  The  pluralis  majes- 
taticus  he  surely  would  not  apply  to  himself,  on  such  an  occasion  ;  and  it 
would  therefore  seem  that  he  speaks  communicative,  comp.  vs.  17,  18,  23, 
above. 

(37)  Thou,  0  king,  art  king  of  kings,  on  whom  the  God  of  heaven  hath  bestowed 
dominion,  strength,  and  power  and  glorv. 


nnsx  ,  see  v.  31.  —  f^  .  .  .  ^  ,  lit.  to  whom  of  the  2d  pers.,  which  we 
cannot  so  express  in  English,  but  the  sense  of  which  I  have  given  above. 
The  ">^  of  course  belongs  to  the  Tjb  ,  and  gives  to  it  a  relative  sense,  al 
though  separated  far  from  it.  —  ttbx  ,  Nom.  before  the  verb  for  the  sake 
of  emphasis.  —  The  four  nouns  that  follow  are  all  of  the  emph.  form,  and 
from  their  specific  meaning  here,  would  claim  an  article  in  the  Hebrew  ; 
§32.  1.  —  fispfi,  with  d,  comes  from  tj£h,  a  Hebraizing  Segholate. 
The  two  first  nouns  are  asyndic,  but  the  last  two  have  each  a  (  1.  ).  The 
writer  probably  designed  to  couple  them  as  one  compound  —  splendid 
power.  The  firmness  of  Daniel  is  conspicuous  here.  He  does  not 
merely  ascribe  splendor  and  power  to  the  king,  (which  he  might  well 
do),  but  solemnly  reminds  him,  that  all  this  is  due  to  the  God  of  heaven, 
who  is  not  only  King  of  kings,  but  King  of  him  who  is  every  day  saluted 
with  this  high  title. 

(38)  And  wherever  dwell  the  sons  of  men,  the  beast  of  the  field,  or  the  fowl  of  the 
air,  into  thy  hand  hath  he  given  [them],  and  made  thee  ruler  over  them  all  ;  thou 
art  that  head  of  gold. 


Bxa  in  its  local  sense,  wherever.     The  ba  is  an  intensive 
6 


62  CHAP.  II.  38. 


here,  as  in  ^  bip-bs  ,  v.  8  above.  Our  English  word  wherever  ex 
presses  the  idea  with  sufficient  exactness.  —  "f?^  »  Peal  Part,  of  ivn  , 
but  the  vowels  belong  to  the  Qeri,  "p^  ,  with  a  movable  Yodh.  The 
Kethibh  would  be  appropriately  pointed  "p^X'n  ,  and  thus  written,  it  is 
simply  a  Hebraizing  form  (like  D^xi?)  ;  and  inasmuch  as  it  stands  here 
so  written,  and  also  in  4:  32.  6:  26,  it  appears  that  the  Masorites  have 
been  too  solicitous  to  conform  the  text  to  the  proper  Chaldee.  I  prefer 
the  Kethibh,  as  being  Hebraeo-Chaldaic.  —  Sons  of  men,  common  in  He 
brew  for  men,  mankind,  but  more  frequent  still  in  Chaldee  and  Syriac. 
—  TVTi,  const,  of  JTpn  (he-va),  from  &pn  to  live,  final  X  here  being  put 
for  1  of  the  root  (§  20.  1),  the  Vav  is  resumed  where  the  fern,  formative 
fi-  is  added.  —  x^2,emph.  form  of  ia,  field;  but  the  probable  root 
("VD  inanisfuit)  seems  to  indicate  either  desert,  or  (like  fQtjuog)  an  un 
cultivated  place,  i.  e.  destitute  of  houses,  hedges,  etc.  —  Fowl  of  the  air, 
generic  like  rvnn  .  That  'pigia  often  designates  the  air,  there  can  be  no 
more  doubt,  than  that  the  corresponding  Heb.  word  does.  —  In  t^a  s«i^  , 
the  a  before  the  noun  conveys  the  appropriate  sense,  into.  The  hand 
grasps  and  wields.  .  To  put  anything  into  it,  is  to  commit  it  to  the  dis 
posal  of  the  person  to  whom  the  hand  belongs.  —  T^CiTi  ,  Aph.  with 
suff.,  hath  made  thee  to  ride.  The  root  of  this  word  points  out  the  mean 
ing  of  Sultan,  i.  e.  inbiy  with  "j-  formative.  —  In  "jirilwa  ,  ba  is  a  noun 
(root  bbs)  with  a  suff.  ;  hence  the  Dagh.  forte  in  b  ,  lit.  over  the  totality 
of  them.  —  x-.n  =  the  verb  art,  §  40.  1.  Still  it  carries  a  kind  of  de 
monstrative  force  with  it,  like  that  of  the  Greek  OVTOS,  and  is  equivalent 
to  thou  art  the  very  or  that  same.  —  frax'n  emph.  of  £jn  for  m*i  .  The 
description  given  in  this  verse  of  the  extensive  dominion  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  is  of  course  not  to  be  literally  urged  ;  for  in  a  court-compliment 
or  address,  (which  must  be  such  as  not  to  give  offence),  who  can  exact 
literal  exegesis?  Is  Paul  to  be  taxed  with  uttering  a  fulsome  com 
pliment,  when  he  addresses  Festus  with  his  usual  title  xgawze  ?  Acts 
26:  25.  That  this  method  of  describing  extensive  dominion  was 
common  in  the  Semitic  dialects,  is  evident  from  Gen.  1:  26.  Ps.  8: 
6_8,  comp.  Heb.  2:  7,  8,  and  Jer.  27:  6.  28:  14.  The  reader  would 
err,  as  I  apprehend  the  matter,  if  he  should  attempt  to  prove  from  this 
golden  head,  that  the  Babylonish  empire  under  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
actually  larger  and  more  powerful  than  any  of  the  three  that  followed. 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  placed  at  the  head,  because  the  symbolic  vision  begins 
with  him  ;  and  the  natural  mode  of  describing  the  image  was  to  begin 
with  its  most  striking  part  —  the  head.  The  assumption,  that  the  whole 
is  a  mere  artifice  of  the  writer,  by  which  he  makes  Daniel  flatter  the 
king,  by  giving  him  such  a  preference  (for  in  this  light  some  view  it) 


CHAP.  II.  39,  40.  63 

over  others,  seems  to  be  but  ill-matched  with  the  bold  and  faithful  and 
fearless  character  of  the  man  as  elsewhere  represented.  Diversity  of  parts 
and  of  metals,  in  the  present  case,  is  requisite  in  order  to  designate  va 
riety  of  dynasties.  No  comparison  of  their  respective  extent  or  impor 
tance  is  to  be  made  out  of  this  ;  for,  plainly,  the  writer  has  himself  made 
the  comparison  in  the  sequel  by  express  language  —  inferior  to  thee  — 
rule  over  all  the  earth  —  mighty  as  iron  which  crusheth  everything. 

(39)  And  after  thee  shall  arise  another  dominion,  inferior  to  thine:  and  another 
third  dominion  of  brass,  which  shall  rule  over  all  the  earth. 


Tftrsi  ,  stiff,  form  of  the  prep.,  from  "IPS;  .  —  y&q  =  nislptt  ,  §  31.  1.  — 
•nnx  ,  adj.  for  n^nx  ,  ib.  —  xs"?x  ,  the  points  belong  to  the  Qeri,  s^z*  . 
The  Masorites  rejected  the  emph.  form,  because  they  regarded  the  word 
as  adverbial;  but  the  word  may  be  fern.,  and  the  objection  then  virtually 
ceases.  The  Kethibh  should  be  read  xr?X  .  —  T^1?  ,  the  "^  of  compari 
son.  The  silver  portion  of  the  image,  to  which  this  second  dominion 
corresponds,  is  not  here  named  ;  but  in  respect  to  the  third  dominion, 
brass  is  specified  as  the  corresponding  symbol,  which  of  course  shows 
that  the  writer  couples,  in  his  own  mind,  the  second  dominion  with  the 
silver,  see  in  v.  32.  —  nxn^rv,  fern,  of  "TV^rt  ,  formed  like  the  stat.  emph. 
in  Dec.  VIII.  p.  91.  In  this  case,  it  distinguishes  the  "^nx  here  from 
the  same  word  above,  and  is  in  apposition  with  the  latter  'nnx  .  —  Reign 
over  all  the  earth,  an  expression  not  to  be  taken  in  a  literal  geographical 
sense,  but  as  a  popular  phrase,  indicating  wide  and  uncontrolled  domina 
tion  ;  comp.  Gen.  41:  54.  Jer.  34:  1.  50:  23.  Ezek.  22:  4.  2  Chron.  36: 
23,  where  Cyrus,  in  his  proclamation,  says  :  "  All  the  kingdoms  of  the 
earth  hath  the  Lord  God  of  heaven  given  unto  me."  So  Luke  2:  1. 
To  this  third  dynasty  is  ascribed  a  wider  domain  than  to  the  preceding 
one.  The  second  is  described  as  inferior  to  the  first,  Tji?  ^"!!!x.  '•>  while 
the  third  is  represented  as  a  domain  of  the  widest  extent.  What  dynasty 
is  represented  by  the  respective  portions  of  the  compound  Colossus,  will 
be  a  subject  of  inquiry  in  the  sequel. 

(40)  And  a  fourth  dominion  shall  he  strong  as  iron  ;  altogether  us  iron  crushes 
and  grinds  to  pieces  everything  —  even  as  iron  which  dashes  in  pieces  —  all  these  will 
it  crush  and  dash  in  pieces. 

*c&q  apoc.  of  r.^c,  §  31.  1.  —  a^SW,  the  vowels  belong  to  the 
Qeri  SiKSW  ,  which  is  the  usual  normal  form  of  the  fern,  in  nouns  with 
the  ending  i-  ,  e.  g.  ^Span  .  Instead  of  the  normal  form,  (which  changes 
the  last  i  into  x  when  accession  is  made),  the  biblical  Chaldee  retains 
the  Todh  final,  and  makes  it  movable.  Our  text,  therefore,  should  be  writ 
ten  x^n^  ;  see  p.  96,  under  No.  VIII.  —  ns^n  is  an  epithet  primarily 
applicable  to  physical  hardness,  compactness,  strength,  like  that  of  iron,  as 


64  CHAP.  II.  41,  42. 

the  text  intimates.  It  does  not  designate,  in  respect  to  the  fourth  dynasty, 
its  potency  by  reason  of  numbers,  but  its  resistless  energy  in  destroying.  — 
^  ;cp~b3  is  not  causal  here,  but  simply  just  as,  altogether  as,  quite  like, 
etc. ;  see  on  v.  8  above,  for  the  form  of  expression.  —  p^""11?  5  Aph.  Part. 
with  n  retained  ;  the  idea  of  crushing  as  grain  is  crushed  in  a  mill, 
which  is  the  appropriate  meaning  of  this  word,  is  very  graphic.  — 
birn,  Part.,  comminuit  to  reduce  to  small  pieces,  or  contudit  to  bruise  to 
pieces,  answer  well  to  the  Chaldee  word.  Our  vulgar  smash  comes  very 
exactly  to  it.  It  serves  to  increase  the  intensity  of  the  description.  The 
corresponding  word  is  "r^  arid  :pr  ,  both  of  which  (from  s:n)  are 
nearly  synonymous  with  ^jn.  Even  as  iron  that  dashes  in  pieces,  re 
sumes  or  repeats  the  comparison  already  intimated,  for  the  sake  of  im 
pressing  on  the  mind  of  the  reader  the  iron-like  power  of  the  dynasty. 
—  T^'bs  >  according  to  the  accents,  belongs  to  yyyz  .  But  this  mars  the 
sense  and  the  grammar.  To  what  can  "pSjftJ  relate,  if  such  a  construction 
be  adopted  ?  As  the  apodosis  must  begin,  therefore,  with  ^3 ,  we  might 
expect  another  3  (as)  =so  before  it.  But  this  is  often  left  unexpressed; 
which  is  frequent  also  in  Hebrew.  The  subject  of  shr!  P^Pi  is  si:ba . 
p'nn  is  Aph.  3  fern.  Fut.  of  pjs'n ,  and  snn  is  Fut.  Peal  of  ?y*\ ,  Pi  be 
cause  the  1  excludes  the  Dagh.  forte.  In  English,  the  three  verbs  are 
well  represented  by  crush,  smash,  and  dash  to  pieces. 

(41 )  And  since  them  sawest  the  feet  and  the  toes,  a  part  of  them  the  clay  of  the  pot 
ter  and  a  part  of  them  iron,  the  dominion  shall  be  divided,  and  there  shall  be  of  the 
firmness  of  iron  in  it,  inasmuch  as  them  sawest  iron  mingled  with  the  whitish  clay. 

"H  =  Trx  ,  quod,  since  that,  because  that.  Mr^tri ,  n  paragogic,  2  sing. 
Peal.  —  "P^Jpa  twice,  .the  vowels  being  for  the  Qeri  "jfiiE  ,  see  on  v.  33  ; 
"ir^  (so  the  Kethibh)  being  masc.,  the  Punctators  have  changed  it  to  the 
fern.  form,  so  as  to  agree  with  the  usual  gender  of  the  antecedents.  But 
may  not  b:n  have  been  of  the  common  gender  ?  If  so,  the  change  is  un 
necessary.  —  xr±^3 ,  emphatic  fern.  Part,  of  3^3 ,  used  here  as  an  abstract 
noun,  that  which  is  stable,  Jinn,  i.  e.  stability,  firmness.  —  K2"1:?  ,  argilla, 
ivhitc  clay,  such  as  potters  use,  and  so  (with  JTbri)  it  is  named  above 
clay  of  the  potter.  The  idea  must  be,  that  the  clay  in  the  image  was 
hardened  by  fire,  otherwise  the  feet  and  legs  could  hardly  be  imagined  to 
support  the  body  of  the  Colossus.  But  still  it  was,  even  in  that  condi 
tion,  far  inferior  to  the  iron  in  point  of  hardness  and  firmness. 

(42)  And  since  the  toes  of  the  feet  were  partly  of  iron  and  partly  of  clay,  in  part 
the  dominion  shall  be  strong,  and  in  part  it  shall  be  brittle. 

•jinsa  as  above.  —  nsp  -,« ,  see  on  1:  2  above.  —  rt^an  fern,  (n  for  the 

Heb.  IL;),  brittle,  friable,  i.  e.  that  which  can  be  easily  broken  or  separated. 

There  is  a  clear  intimation,  in  these  last  two  verses,  that  the  fourth  dy- 


CHAP.  II.  43.  65 

nasty  is  of  quite  a  different  complexion  from  the  other  three.  The 
brittle  and  the  strong  are  commingled  in  it.  But  not  merely  this.  In 
describing  the  second  dynasty  above,  which  includes  the  breast  and  arms, 
nothing  is  said  or  made  of  the  fingers  attached  to  the  hands,  because  no 
special  significancy  is  designed  to  be  given  to  them.  But  here  the  toes 
are  twice  mentioned  separately  from  the  feet,  (vs.  41, 42).  Why  ?  Let 
the  reader  turn  to  chap,  vii,  where  is  another  vision  of  these  four  monarch 
ies  much  more  full  and  explicit  than  the  present  one,  and  he  will  there 
find  ten  horns  of  the  fourth  beast  (vs.  7,  20),  distinguished  in  the  same 
way,  which  are  explained  by  the  angel-interpreter  (7: 24)  as  meaning  ten 
kings,  —  ten  who  are  to  precede  the  little  horn  (vs.  8,  20,  24),  which,  be 
yond  all  reasonable  doubt,  symbolizes  Anthiochus  Epiphanes.  The  ten  toes, 
in  the  passage  before  us,  partly  of  iron  and  partly  of  clay,  appear,  there 
fore  to  designate,  in  a  special  manher,  the  ten  kings  who  precede  the  king 
symbolized  by  the  little  horn,  whose  reign  and  character  correspond  well 
with  the  symbol  of  the  iron  and  the  clay.  But  the  ten  kings,  although  enig 
matically  intimated,  are  not  here  brought  to  special  view,  nor  is  anything 
here  said  of  the  little  horn.  Diverse  in  the  mode  of  representation,  but 
not  in  substantial  meaning,  is  Dan.J$:  8 — 12.  But  we  shall  find  some  fur 
ther  characteristics  of  this  dynasty  in  the  next  verse ;  to  which  we  now 
come. 

(43)  Since  thou  sawest  iron  mingled  with  the  whitish  clay,  the\r  shall  intermingle 
with  the  seed  of  men,  but  they  shall  not  cleave  together  this  with  that,  see  !  even  as 
iron  cannot  mingle  with  clay. 

Since  thou  sawest,  etc.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  been  duly  noticed  by 
interpreters  here,  that  v.  43  is  coordinate  with  vs.  41,  42,  which  com 
mence  with  the  same  expression.  That  the  1  of  connection  is  omitted, 
is  quite  usual  in  this  book,  as  already  remarked.  The  ground  of  such  an 
arrangement  may  be  easily  explained.  Vs.  41,  42  explain  the  mixture  of 
the  iron  and  clay,  as  symbolizing  an  empire  which  is  both  weak  and 
strong,  i.  e.  has  some  weak  points  and  some  strong  ones.  Evidently  the 
mixture  of  iron  and  clay  in  the  feet  and  toes,  indicates  that  the  colossal 
image  has  but  a  frail  support.  Accordingly  when  the  stone  from  the 
mountain  strikes  the  feet,  the  whole  image  falls  and  is  crushed  to  powder. 
But  here  (v.  43)  the  mixture  of  the  iron  and  clay  is  represented  as  sym 
bolizing  another  remarkable  characteristic  of  the  dynasty  in  question,  viz., 
the  intermixture  of  the  party-chiefs  of  the  fourth  dynasty  by  marriage, 
in  order  to  promote  their  respective  designs,  and  also  the  failure  of  these 
arrangements,  to  accomplish  the  end  proposed.  This  circumstance  is  so 
peculiar  from  its  nature,  that  one  at  first  wonders  that  such  a  matter  should 

6* 


66  CHAP.  II.  43. 

be  introduced,  in  order  to  characterize  a  dynasty.  It  implies,  of  course, 
that  there  were  several  chiefs  who  negotiated  intermarriages  ;  for  the 
marriage  of  a  single  reigning  prince  with  some  one,  or  any  one,  is  such 
an  ordinary  circumstance,  that  there  would  be  nothing  distinctive  or  char 
acteristic  in  a  symbol  of  it.  It  also  implies,  that  while  the  object  of  such 
alliances  was  union,  or  at  least  a  design  to  bring  about  a  peaceable  state 
of  things,  that  object  was  in  a  peculiar  manner  defeated.  But  the  solu 
tion  of  such  an  enigmatical  symbol  it  would  be  difficult  to  make  out,  had 
not  the  writer  himself  suggested  it  in  another  almost  historically  graphic 
prediction  respecting  the  fourth  dominion  in  chap.  xi.  6,  7,  and  17. 
Chap.  vii.  and  viii,  which  bring  before  us  the  fourth  dynasty,  and  particu 
larly  one  of  the  most  formidable  among  the  chiefs  of  it,  omit  indeed  all 
reference  to  the  peculiarity  now  in  question.  But  chap,  xi,  as  just  refer 
red  to  above,  gives  us  an  ample  view  of  what  is  meant.  That  both  this 
and  the  passage  before  us  belong  to  the  same  events,  and  to  the  same 
dynasty,  no  one,  I  think,  can  reasonably  call  in  question  for  a  moment. 
The  nature  of  the  case  is  so  entirely  sui  generis,  that  the  coincidence  of 
symbol  and  events  in  both  chapters  is  conclusive.  But  the  historical 
facts  connected  with  the  illustration  of  this,  must  be  reserved  for  a  fuller 
account  of  this  matter  in  remarks  on  ch.  xi.  6,  7, 17. 

^'JK  ,  Part.  pass,  of  Pael,  is  here  substituted  instead  of  the  "pttS?  in 
the  preceding  verses.  It  is  probably  adopted  here,  because  it  is  needed 
in  the  next  clause  to  designate  intermingling  by  marriages.  —  'pa'isfrra , 
Part,  of  Ithpael ;  the  implied  subject  here  is  the  divided  kings.  —  "p'rib  for 
•jirn  ,  see  on  v.  20  above.  —  By  or  with  the  seed  of  men  ;  this  last  phrase, 
seed  of  men,  in  1  Sam.  1:  11.  means  simply  a  male.  But  this  would  not 
make  the  requisite  sense  here.  The  word  srnt  also  means  family,  offspring, 
descendants  ;  which  fits  well  here,  viz.  they  shall  intermingle  by  or  in  the 
way  of  family  alliances.  n^L:iX  serves  merely  to  show,  that  the  literal 
sense  of  ant  is  not  to  be  thought  of.  —  "pp^  ,  Part,  Peal ;  for  the  com 
mentary,  see  Dan.  11:  6,  7, 17.  The  design  of  junction  or  union,  in  a 
political  point  of  view,  is  wholly  frustrated;  T£^  ^  —  i"1?"1!"6?  •"ifn*  one 
with  the  other,  or  lit.  this  with  that,  which  is  the  only  way  in  which  the 
Chaldee  can  express  the  idea  contained  in  the  first  version.  —  sxrr ,  ecce, 
see  now,  calling  the  special  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  fact,  that  disap 
pointed  alliances  by  marriage  are  also  symbolized  by  the  mixture  of  the 
iron  and  clay,  as  well  as  a  mixed  condition  of  weakness  and  strength, 
which  had  already  been  described.  Altogether  of  the  like  nature  is  the 
symbol  of  the  beast  (Apoc.  17:  3,  9,  10),  which  has  seven  heads  (v.  3). 
These  indicate,  first,  "  seven  mountains,"  [of  Rome]  ;  then,  "  seven  kings," 
(vs.  9,  10).  In  other  words,  a  significant  symbol  may  be  used  for  more 


CHAP.  II.  44. 

> 

than  one  purpose  ;  but  when  it  is  so,  the  writer  always  takes 

sake  of  perspicuity,  and  in  order  to  aid  the  reader,  to  declare  that  he  em 
ploys  it  in  this  way.     So  in  the  case  before  us. 

(44)  And  in  the  days  of  those  kings,  the  God  of  heaven  shall  set  up  a  kingdom, 
which  shall  never  be  destroyed,  and  a  dominion  that  shall  not  be  left  to  another  peo 
ple.  'It  shall  crush  and  bring  to  an  end  all  those  kingdoms  :  but  itself  shall  stand 
for  ever. 

Those  kings  must  of  course  mean  the  kings  that  belong  to  the  fourth 
dynasty,  although  they  have  not  thus  far  been  expressly  named,  but 
only  by  implication.  It  is  not  to  be  limited,  as  I  apprehend  the  matter, 
merely  to  the  kings  who  contract  alliances,  but  is  designed  to  comprise 
the  kings  at  large  who  reign  during  the  dynasty.  —  The  phrase  'prnB'h^i 
is  a  general  one,  and  not  of  specific  limitation  like  the  rnTs  qpfQais  ixei- 
vais  of  the  N.  Test.  From  the  nature  and  order  of  all  the  preceding 
cases,  this  fifth  kingdom  is  to  be  successive,  not  coetaneous.  This  inde 
structible  and  immutable  kingdom  is  to  be  built  on  the  ruins  of  all  the 
others  ;  and  so  it  is  described  as  crushing  and  making  an  end  of  them. 
The  explanation  agrees  with  the  account  of  the  symbol,  vs.  34,  35. 
There  the  stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain  smites  the  feet  of  iron  and  clay, 
and  the  whole  image  falls  and  is  dashed  to  pieces.  The  symbol  is  per 
fectly  congruous.  All  the  four  empires  are  symbolized  by  one  and  the 
same  image  connected  together.  When  the  feet  therefore  that  support 
this  image  are  crushed,  then  falls  the  whole  Colossus,  as  a  matter  of 
course.  But  as  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  the  empires  represented  by  the 
image  are  successive,  and  must  be  so  considered ;  and  indeed  they  are  so 
represented  by  Daniel  in  his  interpretation  of  the  symbol.  In  the  present 
verse,  the  writer  has  merely  followed  out  the  symbol,  in  his  explanations  ; 
and  what  he  says,  if  strictly  urged  without  any  reference  to  the  nature  of 
the  symbol,  would  imply  the  contemporaneous  existence  of  all  the  four 
monarchies,  when  the  fifth  commences  its  course.  Yet  as  this  would 
altogether  disagree  with  the  actual  nature  of  the  case,  and  with  the  au 
thor's  own  representation  of  the  matter  in  other  passages,  we  cannot  for 
a  moment  hesitate  to  say,  that  when  the  fourth  dynasty  is  crushed,  which 
virtually  comprised  all  the  others,  then  the  whole  are  represented  as  be 
ing  crushed.  It  is  not  necessary,  moreover,  to  suppose  this  crushing  to 
take  place,  after  the  time  when  the  fifth  kingdom  had  actually  begun.  If 
it  took  place  as  being  necessary  to  prepare  for  the  coming  or  ushering  in 
of  the  fifth  kingdom,  then  it  may  well  be  said  that  this  kingdom  occasioned 
the  crushing.  It  is  enough,  that  before  the  fifth  dynasty  becomes  actu 
ally  established,  the  other  preceding  dynasties  are  no  more.  This  last 
circumstance  seems  very  plainly  to  oppose  the  idea  that  the  Roman  domi- 


68  CHAP.  II.  45,  46. 

nation  constitutes  the  fourth  dynasty  ;  for  this  had  not  reached  its  acme 
when  Christianity  was  established.  —  bsnrjfi,  Ithpael.  —  -paftiat),  Fut. 
Ithpael  of  p5£J  ,  tn  transposed,  p.  40.  5.  6  ;  for  Hireq  in  a  ,  see  p.  49.  2. 
—  son1]  ,  Fut.  Aph.  of  C]*i&,  p.  67,  top.  —  fitriaba  ,  p.  92.  Par.  A.  c. 

(45)  Inasmuch  as  them  sawest,  that  from  the  mountain  a  stone  was  cut  out  with 
out  hands,  and  crushed  the  iron,  brass,  clay,  silver,  and  gold,  the  great  God  hath 
made  known  to  the  king  what  shall  be  hereafter  ;  the  dream  moreover  is  certain, 
and  the  interpretation  thereof  faithful. 


3  here  —  I'n  in  vs.  41  ,  43  ;  only  more  intensive  in  form.  — 
fll^nri  ,  3d  Fern.  Ithpeal,  p.  53.  3d  Gutt.  3.  —  iSi  xb  ^  ,  see  on.  v.  34. 
—  Iron,  brass,  etc.,  again  asyndic  ;  see  on  v.  35.  —  xirib  ,  as  in  v.  20.  — 
3^  is  a  predicate  of  X^n  ,  and  therefore  needs  not  to  be  in  the  stat. 
emph.  —  "j^"™  ,  Part.  pass.  Aph.  from  "pcx  ,  with  tt  prefix  retained, 
p.  49.  5.  The  object  of  Daniel's  assertion  in  this  case  is  plainly  to  as 
sure  the  king  that  all  which  he  had  said  was  from  such  a  source,  (viz. 
from  that  "  God  in  heaven  who  revealeth  secrets,"  v.  28),  that  it  might 
be  confidently  relied  on.  There  is  doubtless  an  implied  reflection  upon 
the  divination  and  soothsaying  of  the  Magi  ;  but  not  in  such  a  way  that 
the  king,  or  they,  could  justly  take  any  exception  to  it.  That  Daniel 
stakes  his  future  credit  and  condition  upon  the  certainty  of  what  he  had 
disclosed,  lies  upon  the  very  face  of  the  matter.  The  sequel  shows,  that 
the  consciousness  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  awakened  by  the  disclosure  of 
Daniel,  testified  to  him  that  the  Hebrew  seer  had  correctly  related  the 
dream  ;  and  therefore  he  might  well  conclude,  as  he  seems  for  the  time 
to  have  done,  that  all  which  was  predicted  would  take  place. 

Inasmuch  as  this  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar  contains  only  the  germ  of  what  is  more 
fully  unfolded  in  chap,  vii,  viii,  xi,  I  shall  defer  the  discussion  respecting  the  different 
empires,  to  which  it  alludes  by  bringing  to  view  the  different  substances  and  different 
parts  of  the  colossal  image,  until  the  reader  has  further  opportunity  to  become  more 
acquainted  with  the  nature  and  object  of  the  present  book. 

(46)  Then  king  Nebuchadnezzar  fell  on  his  face,  and  worshipped  Daniel,  and 
oblation  and  sweet  odors  he  commanded  to  bestow  abundantly  upon  him. 


pi.  snfF.  of  t£X  ,  which  however  is  not  used  in  the  sing.,  = 
Heb.  ta^BX  where  the  3  is  asssimilated.  —  Comp.  TIQOGXVVSCO,  e.  g.  in 
Matt.  2:  11.  To  fall  on  one'  's  face  means  to  prostrate  one's  self  to  the  earth, 
until  the  face  comes  in  contact  with  the  ground,  —  comp.  nx^ix  infiW  ,  Gen. 
18:  2.  This  of  itself  would  not  determine  the  question,  however,  whether 
Nebuchadnezzar  meant  to  pay  divine  or  civil  honors  to  Daniel  ;  for  such 
prostration  was  common  before  kings,  princes,  or  indeed  before  any  one 
intended  to  be  specially  honored,  as  well  as  before  God,  when  in  the  atti- 


CHAP.  II.  47.  69 

tude  of  adoration.  Abraham  paid  such  an  honor  to  the  children  of  Heth, 
who  had  given  him  a  burying  place  for  Sarah,  Gen.  23:  7.  Moreover, 
the  word  nap  (§  12.  1.  1),  worshipped,  or  paid  homage,  is  not  decisive  of 
religious  worship.  Neither  wpuld  the  sweet  odors  presented  to  Daniel, 
indicate  with  certainty  the  design  of  the  king  ;  for  these  are  as  common 
in  the  East  as  prostration,  and  are  in  themselves  merely  a  token  of  special 
honor.  But  the  nnw  is  relied  on,  by  Leng.,  as  evidence  of  religious 
homage,  for  he  speaks  of  it  as  distinct  from  "jpra  ,  the  latter  meaning 
present  or  gift  by  one  man  to  another,  while  the  former,  as  he  avers,  de 
signates  oblations  made  to  God.  A  glance  at  ^Hi^a  in  Ges.  Lex.  dissipates 
all  this  ;  for  the  word  is  often  employed  for  common,  and  especially  for 
liberal,  gifts  of  men  to  each  other,  and  also  for  tribute  paid  to  the  govern 
ment,  (which  bears  the  soft  and  courteous  name  of  ^n?'1?)  •  From  the 
state  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  mind,  who  was  overwhelmed  with  astonish 
ment,  we  may  reasonably  conclude,  that  at  least  he  meant,  by  his  pros 
tration,  oblations,  and  odors,  to  acknowledge  Daniel  as  the  accredited 
interpreter  of  the  God  who  had  thus  revealed  secret  things,  and  through 
him  to  present  his  homage  and  oblations  to  the  God  of  the  Jews,  who 
could  perform  such  wonders.  Still,  reasoning  of  this  kind  presupposes 
some  illumination  of  mind  on  religious  matters,  and  how  much  of  this  Neb- 
uchadnezar  possessed,  it  would  be  difficult  to  say.  That  any  abiding 
conviction  of  the  immeasurable  superiority  of  the  God  of  the  Jews  above 
the  Babylonish  divinities,  was  now  fastened  on  the  king's  mind,  is  clearly 
negatived  by  the  following  chapters.  But  he  was  a  man  of  vehement  pas 
sions  and  strong  impulses,  and  at  such  a  moment  as  the  one  before  us,  it 
is  no  wronder  that  he  went  all  lengths  in  testifying  his  astonishment  and 
solemn  awe.  Daniel  seems,  if  we  consult  the  next  verse,  to  have  been 
rather  the  medium  of  worship  (such  as  it  was),  than  the  direct  object  of  it. 
—  Fis&ib  ,  Inf.  Pael  of  7}&3  ,  lit.  means  to  pour  out,  or  (like  the  Greek  anev- 
dsiv)  to  make  a  libation,  etc.  In  this  sense  it  would  apply  only  to  "prints  , 
sweet  (liquid)  odorous  substances,  and  then  we  must  assume  a  zeugma  in 
respect  to  the  preceding  noun.  To  avoid  the  necessity  of  this,  I  have 
given  to  the  verb  a  secondary  or  tropical  sense,  and  rendered  it  abun 
dantly  bestow  ;  which,  at  least,  accords  well  with  the  nature  of  the  occa 
sion. 

(47)  The  king  answered  Daniel  and  said  :  It  is  true  that  your  God  is  the  very 
God  of  gods,  and  Lord  of  kings,  and  the  Eevealer  of  secret  things,  inasmuch  as  thou 
hast  been  able  to  reveal  this  secret. 


Bttip  "jo  ,  lit.  of  a  truth,  i.  e.  it  belongs  to  truth,  or  is  a  part  of  it  =  truly, 
verily.  I  have  rendered  the  phrase  simply  true,  in  order  to  conform  the 
expression  to  our  usual  idiom.  —  Tbqbx  ,  sing,  with  2  plur.  pron.  suff., 


70  CHM-.  II.  48. 

where  your  relates  to  Daniel  and  his  companions,  x^n  =  avzog 
=  the  very,  the  self-same.  —  x^v  ,  Part,  noun,  Dec.  III.  b.  p.  91,  K  being 
radical  not  emph.  —  nba ,  another  Part,  noun,  or  it  may  be  taken  in  a 
verbal  sense.  —  nbs^  ,  '2d  pers.  sing.,  for  Daniel  was  the  only  one  who 
revealed  the  mystery  which  the  king  had  in  view.  The  suffix  above  (your} 
points  to  the  God  of  both  Daniel  and  his  friends,  to  whom  these  Hebrews 
held  a  common  relation ;  but  the  interpretation  of  the  dream  was  given 
only  by  Daniel.  Lengerke  insinuates,  that  all  which  is  here  ascribed  to 
Nebuchadnezzar,  is  the  result  of  design  in  the  author  of  the  book,  who 
wrote  it  in  the  Maccabaean  times,  intending  by  it  to  make  a  show  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  heathen  were  constrained  to  acknowledge  the 
superiority  of  the  God  of  Israel ;  and  he  compares  the  narration  of  what 
was  now  said,  to  that  which  is  ascribed  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  on  his  death 
bed,  as  related  in  2  Mace.  ix.  It  must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that 
nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  for  such  a  person  as  Nebuchadnezzar 
to  demean  himself  in  the  manner  here  described,  in  circumstances  such 
as  his.  But  to  controvert  such  matters  with  Lengerke,  would  force  me 
to  quit  the  appropriate  business  of  commentary,  and  go  to  arguing  the 
question  :  Whether  anything  of  a  miraculous  nature  is  possible  ?  I 
deem  it  to  be  out  of  place  to  pursue  such  a  discussion  here.  I  have  pro 
fessed  my  belief  in  the  supernatural,  whenever  and  wherever  an  important 
object  was  to  be  accomplished  by  it,  which  could  not  well  be  accomplished 
in  other  ways.  Credible  testimony  then  becomes  the  main  question,  for 
those  who  admit  such  a  position ;  and  for  myself,  I  feel  disposed  to  re 
gard  the  book  before  us  as  containing  such  testimony.  Our  Saviour  calls 
Daniel  a  prophet,  Matt.  24:  15. 

(48)  Then  the  king  promoted  Daniel,  and  gave  him  large  and  numerous  presents, 
and  made  him  ruler  over  all  the  province  of  Babylon,  and  chief  overseer  over  all  the 
wise  men  of  Babylon. 

"^  Pael  of  xa'n  ,  lit.  made  great,  i.  e.  great  in  office  or  station  =  pro 
moted.  —  1^1^  >  intens.  form  of  r^.  ,  with  the  fern.  plur.  ending. 
—  fiS^'TO ,  const,  form,  province  ;  which  here  probably  means  the  sa 
trapy  of  Babylonia.  —  "pWD  n^  ,  principal  ",50  =  overseer  or  praefect. 
What  the  particular  duties  of  this  office  wTere,  we  do  not  know.  That 
Daniel  so  managed  them  as  to  keep  clear  of  divination  by  sorcery  or 
astrology,  and  of  the  performance  of  heathen  rites,  would  seem  to  be  im 
plied  by  the  account  of  his  demeanor  which  is  given  in  the  book  of  Daniel. 
That  every  overseer  of  the  kind  here  named  should  have  deputies  under 
him,  (v7zaQ%ot,  (WXOfO/iw),  was  the  common  custom  of  the  East ;  which 
accounts  for  the  circumstance  mentioned  in  the  next  verse. 


CHAP.  III.  INTRODUCTION.  71 

(49)  And  Daniel  made  request  of  the  king,  and  he  appointed  over  the  business 
of  the  province  of  Babylon,  Shadrach,  Meshacli,  and  Abednego.  And  Daniel  was  in 
the  gate  of  the  king. 


xrvra?  ,  prop,  service  of  any  kind,  but  here  the  business  of  the  king, 
whether  it  concerned  government  or  revenue.  —  S^rs  ,  in  the  gate.  This 
was  of  course  at  the  entrance  into  the  palace,  and  hence  it  seems  indi 
rectly  to  designate  the  palace  itself,  e.  g.  as  threshold  designates  the  whole 
building.  Thus  :  "  Lift  up  your  heads,  O  ye  gates  !"  seems  to  mean  : 
4  Be  thou  loftily  erected,  O  temple,'  viz.  as  a  fit  dwelling  place  of  God, 
Ps.  24:  7.  When  it  is  said  that  Daniel  was  at  the  door  or  gate  of  the 
king,  I  understand  the  idea  expressed  to  be,  that  he  was  the  leading 
courtier,  or  was  he  who  introduced  to  the  king  those  who  visited  the 
palace.  To  this  place,  as  head  of  all  the  Magi,  Daniel  was  probably 
now  entitled  by  virtue  of  his  office,  as  well  as  by  the  favor  of  the  king. 


CHAPTER  III. 

[This  chapter  might  be  entitled  :  The  martyrdom  of  Shadrach,  Meshach  and  Abed 
nego.  Nebuchadnezzar  makes  a  colossal  image,  and  erects  it  near  to  Babylon  He 
summons  all  his  leading  civil  officers  to  the  dedication  of  the  new  idol.  When  they 
had  assembled,  proclamation  is  made,  that  all  shall  fall  down  and  worship  it,  when 
ever  the  music  shall  give  the  signal.  All  who  refuse  to  do  this  are  to  be  cast  into  a 
fiery  furnace,  vs.  1 — 6.  The  mass  assembled  at  the  dedication  obey  the  king's  com 
mand.  But  some  of  the  Chaldeans  (Magi),  perceiving  that  the  three  friends  of  Dan 
iel  failed  to  do  so,  give  information  to  the  king,  vs.  7 — 12.  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  a 
rage,  sends  for  the  disobedient  Hebrews,  and  inquires  of  them  whether  the  informa 
tion  is  true  ;  threatening,  at  the  same  time,  severe  punishment  in  case  of  continued 
disobedience.  The  offenders  do  not  deny  the  charge  of  transgressing  the  king's  com 
mandment,  and  moreover  they  openly  declare  their  intention  not  to  obey  him  in  this 
matter,  vs.  13 — 18.  The  enraged  king  instantly  commands  them  to  be  thrown  into 
the  fiery  furnace,  which  is  heated  to  an  unusual  degree.  The  men  who  were  the  im 
mediate  instruments  of  executing  this  command,  are  destroyed  by  the  vehement 
heat  of  the  furnace,  while  the  three  Hebrews,  being  bound  and  cast  into  it  with  all 
their  garments  upon  them,  are  not  so  much  as  scorched  by  the  flames,  vs.  19 — 23. 
Speedily  the  king,  who  seems  to  have  been  present  to  see  the  execution  of  his  sen 
tence,  perceives  that  the  three  men  are  loosed  from  their  bands,  and  that  a  fourth 
personage,  who  wore  a  supernatural  aspect,  was  walking  calmly  and  conversing  with 
them,  in  the  midst  of  the  furnace,  vs.  24,  25.  Overawed  by  this  spectacle,  the  king 
comes  near  the  furnace,  and  commands  the  three  Hebrews  to  come  out  from  it.  All 
the  king's  officers  around  him  perceive,  that  the  fire  had  made  no  injurious  impres 
sion  upon  the  accused.  Nebuchadnezzar,  filled  with  awe  and  consternation,  declares 
his  gratitude  to  the  God  of  the  Hebrews  for  having  delivered  them;  proclaims  a  de 
cree  that  none  shall  speak  ill  of  him,  and  elevates  to  a  still  higher  rank  in  the  pro 
vince  of  Babylon,  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego,  vs.  26 — 30.] 


72  CHAP.  III.  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

Objections  almost  without  number  have  been  made  against  this  chapter. 
'An  image  so  huge  and  expensive/  it  is  alleged,  'is  utterly  an  improbable 
thing.  The  proportions  of  it,  60  cubits  (=  90  feet)  high  and  only  six 
cubits  broad,  are  ridiculous,  and  make  it  impossible  that  it  should  keep  an 
upright  position.  Daniel  too  —  where  was  he  ?  Not  a  word  of  him  on  this 
occasion.  Who  can  believe  that  he  was  permitted  to  be  absent  ?  Besides, 
we  have  no  credible  account  of  any  prophets  or  miracles  among  the  Jews 
in  their  Babylonish  exile.  How  comes  it,  too,  that  a  heated  furnace  was 
already  in  waiting,  before  it  was  known  whether  it  would  be  needed  or 
not?  There  is,  on  the  whole  face  of  these  matters,  a  manifest  effort  in  the 
writer  to  represent  everything  as  wonderful ;  the  furnace  is  heated  seven 
times  more  than  usual ;  the  men  who  cast  the  victims  into  it  are  destroyed, 
while  not  even  the  smell  of  fire  comes  upon  the  victims  themselves  (v.  27). 
Besides  all  this,  the  monstrous  height  and  more  monstrous  proportions  of 
the  image,  are  preposterous,  and  its  expense  almost  beyond  conception. 
The  assembling,  moreover,  of  all  the  superior  officers,  from  the  most  distant 
provinces,  at  the  dedication  of  the  idol,  —  this  and  all  the  other  circum 
stances  show,  that  we  have  romance  rather  than  history  before  us  The 
Arabian  Nights  Entertainment  presents  us  with  many  a  striking  parallel  to 
this  chapter — parallels  that  in  themselves  are  equally  credible/ 

This  is  a  specimen  of  what  has  of  late  often  been  alleged  against  the  his 
torical  verity  of  Dan.  III.  Bertholdt  is  taken  to  task  by  Lengerke  (p.  105), 
for  even  allowing  that  the  story  related  in  this  chapter  has  any  basis  in 
fact,  or  any  germ  of  truth  in  it.  Bertholdt,  who  could  go  far  enough  on 
an  exigency  into  the  "  neuere  Kritik,"  was  somehow  a  little  cautious  on 
this  occasion ;  for  he  supposes  that  Nebuchadnezzar  did  actually  set  up  a 
large  statue,  and  summon  his  officers  to  the  dedication  of  it.  He  also  con 
cedes,  that  Daniel's  companions,  true  to  their  Hebrew  feelings,  refused  the 
homage  demanded,  and  were  consequently  condemned  to  a  severe  punish 
ment  ;  from  which  Daniel  probably  procured  a  reprieve.  "  Abzuweisen 
ist"  (to  be  rejected),  says  Lengerke  of  all  this.  Differently,  however,  does 
he  speak  of  Hitzig.  The  latter  (in  Heid.  Jahrb.  1832.  h.  2.  s.  125)  says  : 
"  Hengstenberg  passes  over  the  essence  of  the  wonder  [deliverance  from 
the  furnace]  in  silence.  This  is  quite  intelligible ;  for  here  he  must  yield 
the  ground,  and  betake  himself  to  an  a  priori  faith.  Forsooth  !  A  miracle 
which  changes  the  very  nature  of  an  element,  must  truly  be  a  great  one. 
It  is  indeed  the  greatest  of  any  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  not  on  this  ac 
count  the  most  credible."  Treffend  I  (striking),  says  Lengerke  of  all  this  ; 
and  in  a  somewhat  different  sense  we  also  might  say  :  Treffend !  He  then 
cites  a  long  passage  from  Redepenning  (Stud,  and  Krit.  1833,  s.  85G),  the 
amount  of  which  is,  that  '  the  miracles  of  the  O.  Test,  are  more  colossal  than 
those  of  the  New,  because  they  are  addressed  to  the  inferior  senses,  and 
are  adapted  to  take  hold  of  the  imagination.'  Finally,  Lengerke  asserts 
(p.  Ill),  that  the  narration  before  us  '  will  find  credit  only  among  those,  who 
believe  in  the  veracity  of  a  certain  Benjamin  [of  Tudela],  who  asserts,  that 
the  oven  into  which  the  three  Jews  were  cast,  is  still  to  be  seen  standing  at 
Babylon.' 

So  much  for  liberal  criticism  ;  and  so  much,  I  might  add,  for  decorum 
and  real  liberality  of  feeling,  in  those  who  glory  iu  being  called  their  de 
fenders. 


CHAP.  III.  1.  73 

I  shall  not  now  examine  seriatim  the  various  allegations  above  recited,  inasmuch 
as  it  would  make  the  introduction  to  chap.  III.  too  long ;  but  specially  because  I 
deem  it  more  satisfactory  to  the  reader,  and  more  feasible  to  the  writer,  to  pay  the 
requisite  attention  to  objections,  after  we  have  duly  considered  the  explanation  of 
those  assertions  in  the  history,  on  which  the  allegations  in  question  are  founded.  A 
safer  and  better  judgment  can  then  be  formed  of  these  matters. 

(1)  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  made  an  image  of  gold,  sixty  cubits  in  height  and 
six  cubits  in  breadth;  he  set  it  up  in  the  plain  of  Dura,  in  the  province  of  Babylon. 

fibs ,  properly  =  o*x/'a,  shadow,  thence  image,  likeness.  Like  the  Heb. 
bso,  Ezek.  8:  3,  5.  Deut.  4:  16.  2  Chron.  33:  7,  it  is  also  used  for  statue, 
to  which  was  attributed  a  likeness.  In  the  case  before  us,  no  god  is 
named  whose  likeness  the  statue  bore ;  and  so  we  are  at  liberty  to  con 
jecture  what  is  most  probable,  among  a  people  of  such  religious  views 
as  the  Babylonians  cherished.  That  Belus  was  the  principal  god,  is  ad 
mitted  on  all  hands.  Gesenius  (Lex.  bsa)  thinks  that  Belus  is  a  symbol 
of  the  planet  Jupiter.  That  at  a  later  period  this  was  so  among  several 
oriental  nations,  there  is  little  room  to  doubt.  But  to  my  mind,  Munter 
(Relig.  der  Bab.  s.  16  f.)  has  given  satisfactory  proof,  that  the  sun  was 
the  leading  divinity  of  the  East.  Baal  seems  to  be  rather  an  appella 
tive  which  might  be  applied  to  any  leading  god  =  Dominus  ;  the  article 
would  of  course  make  it  significant  of  the  chief  god.  That  Munter  is  in 
the  right,  in  these  views,  I  should  argue  from  the  fact,  that  all  of  middle 
and  hither  Asia  were  worshippers  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  Well  might 
all  be  such,  who  had  sprung  from  the  regions  where  Zoroaster's  religion 
once  bore  universal  sway.  The  soul  and  centre  of  this  was  ORMUSD  ; 
and  the  home  and  symbol  of  Ormusd  was  the  sun.  When,  in  process  of 
time,  Parsism,  i.  e.  the  religion  of  Zoroaster,  was  modified  by  foreign 
intercourse,  and  by  views  growing  more  and  more  heathenish,  then 
statues  or  visible  symbols  of  the  gods  worshipped  began  to  be  made,  (for 
Parsism  had  none)  ;  and  as  long  as  the  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
was  the  leading  principle  of  any  modification  of  Parsism,  (and  such  it 
was  over  all  hither  Asia  down  to  quite  a  late  period),  so  long  the  sun 
would  be  regarded  at  least  as  Primus  inter  pares.  But  is  it  certain, 
what  shape  a  fibs  of  the  sun,  (for  such  probably  was  Nebuchadnezzar's 
image),  would  take  among  the  Babylonians?  That  the  statues  of  Belus 
at  Babylon,  mentioned  by  Ctesias  and  Herodotus,  were  of  the  human 
form,  seems  altogether  probable,  perhaps  certain.  But  it  is  easy  to  see, 
there  might  be  two  forms  of  an  image  made  to  represent  the  sun  ;  one  of 
the  human  form,  symbolizing  the  divinity  who  was  supposed  to  dwell  in 
the  sun ;  another  after  the  form  of  the  natural  sun  itself;  for  this  would 
equally  well  remind  the  worshipper  of  the  god  whom  he  worshipped. 

7 


74  Exc.  IV.  ON  CHAP.  III.  1. 

If  the  latter  may  be  supposed,  in  the  case  before  us,  then  a  pillar-form, 
i.  e.  aji  obelisk-body,  with  a  head  or  top  formed  in  the  sun's  likeness,  not 
only  may,  but  must,  naturally  be  supposed.  For  a  moment  we  will  rest 
the  matter  here. 

•pnd  =  60,  from  nia  or  rd  =the  Heb.  ttjttj,  six.  — ^ne,  suff.  form 
of  IP.B. 


EXCURSUS  IV. 

This  enormous  height  of  ninety  feet  or  sixty  cubits,  and  breadth  of  only 
nine  feet,  is  that  which  has  called  forth,  as  we  have  seen  above,  the  sar 
casms  and  the  sneers  of  so  many  recent  critics.  Yet  a  sober  inquirer  may 
be  permitted  to  ask  :  If  the  statue  exhibited  a  similitude  of  the  human  form, 
why  did  not  the  writer  name  the  part  of  the  body  from  which  the  breadth 
was  taken  ?  Was  it  head,  neck,  breast,  shoulders,  loins,  or  what  ?  for 
surely  the  difference  is  not  a  little  in  the  breadth  of  these  parts.  If  it  was 
of  pyramidal  shape,  then  we  might  expect  the  measure  of  breadth  to  be  es 
timated  of  course  from  the  base  near  to  the  earth.  The  form  of  the  nar 
ration  looks  very  much  like  this.  Where,  in  all  the  accounts  we  have  of 
the  large  size  of  the  human  form,  is  an  account  of  its  breadth  given,  with 
out  any  reference  to  the  part  that  was  measured  for  it  ?  The  Egyptian 
obelisks  are  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  in  height.  Might  not 
one  of  ninety  feet,  if  the  base  were  sunk  deep  in  the  earth,  stand  erect 
without  any  difficulty,  (just  as  well  as  the  trunk  of  a  lofty  tree),  if  it  were 
of  the  breadth  here  named  ?  The  huge  disproportion  (ninety  feet  high 
and  only  nine  feet  broad),  which  is  so  often  spoken  of  with  a  contemptuous 
sneer,  vanishes  entirely  when  we  suppose  the  form  to  have  resembled  an 
obelisk.  Is  it  not  a  conceded  fact,  moreover,  that  between  the  ancient 
Egyptian  and  Babylonian  religion,  priesthood,  objects  of  worship,  and  ar 
chitecture,  there  were  striking  resemblances  ?  Jablonski  has  shown,  (Pant. 
Aegypt.  p.  LXXX.  seq.),  that  the  obelisks  of  Egypt  were  idol-pillars.  The 
Chronicon  Alex.  (p.  89)  says  :  "  The  Assyrians  [i.  e.  those  who  lived  be 
yond  the  Euphrates]  first  erected  columnam  Marti,  and  worshipped  him 
among  the  gods."  The  Amyclaean  Apollo,  in  Lacedemonia,  was  a  pillar, 
to  which  were  appended  head  and  feet,  (Miinter  Rel.  der  Bab.  s.  59). 
Among  the  ruins  of  Rome  have  been  dug  out  two  images,  formed  by  a  pil 
lar-basis,  surmounted  by  a  bust  of  the  head  and  breast,  (Bottari  Sculture, 
etc.  tab.  22  and  82).  If  difficulty  be  made,  on  the  ground  of  erecting  such  a 
huge  obelisk  of  gilded  wood,  what  is  to  be  said  of  the  obelisks  in  Egypt 
which  are  of  one  stone,  and  are  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet 
high  ?  And  what  of  the  brass  Colossus  at  Rhodes,  which,  according  to 
Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  XXXIV.  18),  was  seventy  cubits  high?  And  as  to  the 
alleged  grotesqueness  of  the  proportions  or  symmetry,  who  that  is  familiar 
with  the  monstrous  and  the  gigantic  which  is  everywhere  apparent  in  the 
Babylonish  structures  —  walls,  temples,  towers,  dykes,  and  hanging  gardens 
—  will  be  disposed  to  make  anything  of  this  ?  Gesenius  himself  very  justly 
says,  (Art.  Babylon,  in  Ersch  and  Grub.  Encyc.  Th.  VII.  p.  24),  when 


Exc.  IV.  ON  CHAP.  III.  1.  75 

speaking  of  the  ruins  of  the  tower  of  Belus  :  "  They  are  imposing  merely 
on  the  ground  of  their  colossal  greatness,  not  on  the  score  of  beauty.  All 
the  ornaments  are  rude  and  barbarous"  In  fact,  the  huge,  the  grotesque, 
the  gigantesque,  belongs  to  nearly  all  the  Babylonish  works  of  art,  which 
have  gained  celebrity.  Why  was  not  Nebuchadnezzar's  cb^  in  good  keep 
ing  with  all  this  ? 

"  But  the  astounding,  the  incalculable,  the  incredible  expense  of  such  an 
image  of  gold !  It  surpasses  all  faith,  except  an  a  priori  one,  like  that  of 
Hengstenberg !" 

But  what  if  the  image  in  question  were  first  carved  from  wood,  or  rather, 
constructed  with  wood,  and  then  a  strong  gilding  or  thin  gold  plate  were 
put  upon  it  —  could  it  not  then  be  called  golden  ?  Was  not  this  usually  so? 
In  Ex.  37:  25,  the  altar  of  incense  is  said  to  have  been  made  of  acacia- 
wood  ;  yet  in  Ex.  39:  38  this  is  called  the  altar  of  gold  (3TOH  fiS"1?)  ;  and 
so  in  Ex.  40:  5,  26.  Num.  4:  11.  In  like  manner,  Ex.  38:' 1  tells'  us,  that 
the  altar  of  burnt-offerings  was  made  of  acacia  ;  and  yet  in  Ex.  39:  39  it  is 
called  r.'ijnsn  H2t^ ,  the  altar  of  brass.  In  both  cases,  the  appellations 
gold,  brass,  are  of  course  to  be  understood  as  applied  to  the  plating  which 
consisted  of  those  metals.  Clearly  it  was  so  with  the  idol-statues ;  see  Isa. 
40:  19  seq.,  where  the  whole  process  is  minutely  described.  So  again  in 
Isa.  46:  6  seq.,  where  (in  v.  7)  the  carrying  of  the  idol  on  the  shoulder  is 
mentioned,  which  excludes  the  idea  of  a  solid  casting.  Comp.  also  Isa.  44: 
9 — 17.  Again,  the  like  is  graphically  described  in  Jer.  10: '3  seq.,  specially 
in  vs.  4,  9.  To  make  out  the  whole  shape  of  a  large  idol,  wood  was  neces 
sary  ;  for  this  the  carver  could  easily  fashion.  But  to  cast  a  statue  of  thirty, 
forty,  or  more  cubits  in  height,  from  molten  metals,  surpassed  all  the  know 
ledge  and  power  of  antiquity.  If  indeed  the  whole  statue  was  metal  of  any 
kind,  it  must  have  been  hollow,  and  only  a  metalline  surface  (so  to  speak) 
was  constructed.  The  probable  cost  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  image,  made  in 
either  of  the  ways  above  described,  (and  these  are  the  only  feasible  ones), 
need  excite  neither  the  astonishment  nor  the  sarcastic  smile  of  critics,  pro 
vided  they  are  more  solicitous  to  inquire  carefully  after  facts,  than  prone 
to  ridicule  what  they  do  not  readily  understand. 

But  on  almost  any  ground,  there  is  not  much  occasion  for  the  contemptu 
ous  rejection  of  our  narrative.  Of  all  the  cities  of  the  ancient  world,  Ba 
bylon,  the  great  medium  and  metropolis  of  communication  between  the 
commercial  agents  of  the  East  and  West,  was  the  richest,  most  luxurious, 
and  most  magnificent.  See  the  common  views  in  regard  to  this  capital,  as 
developed  in  Rev.  xviii.  If  we  are  astounded,  moreover,  at  the  expense  of 
such  an  image  as  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  ac 
counts  of  Herod,  and  Ctesias  ?  The  latter  says  (in  Diod.  Sic.  II.  9),  that 
the  statue  of  Belus  was  forty  feet  high,  and  weighed  1000  Babylonian 
talents.  Larcher  estimates  the  800  talents,  which  Herodotus  (I.  183)  says 
the  statue  weighed,  at  56,160,000  Francs  (=  $11,240,000),  which  makes 
each  talent  to  be  worth  about  14,000  dollars  ;*  and  reckoning  with  this  the 


*  This  estimate  seems  to  be  made  on  the  ground  that  the  talents  in  question  were 
Babylonian;  which  is  not  improbable,  although  Herodotus  does  not  expressly  say 
this.  But  in  III.  89  he  specifies  the  Babylonish  talent,  as  differing  from  the  Attic  or 
Euboean  talent.  The  latter  weighed  sixty  minae,  and  the  former  seventy ;  see  Be- 


76  Exc.  IV.  ON  CHAP.  III.  1. 

other  statues  that  Ctesias  mentions,  and  the  apparatus  of  tables,  bowls,  censers, 
etc.,  we  have  the  sum  of  5500  talents  of  gold  =  about  77,800,000  dollars. 
If  the  account  of  such  expenditure  be  deemed  in  part  fictitious,  (it  is  at 
least  of  a  somewhat  suspicious  character),  then  let  us  calculate  what 
merely  the  single  pyramid  of  Cheops  at  Ghiza  cost,  and  see  whether  it  will 
not  far  exceed  this  sum.  Take  into  account,  moreover,  the  walls  of  Baby 
lon,  said  to  be  250 — 300  or  more  feet  high,  and  sixty  miles  in  compass. 
Add  to  these  the  tower  of  Belus,  the  palaces,  the  hanging  gardens,  the 
dykes,  the  artificial  lakes  and  canals,  etc. ;  and  then  a  glance  at  the  statue 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  makes  it  dwindle  down  to  quite  a  pigmy  by  the  side  of 
all  these  stupendous  structures.  If  we  disclaim  the  allowance  of  any  credit 
to  such  accounts,  how  shall  we  dispose  of  the  testimony  of  Herodotus  and 
Ctesias,  who  both  visited  Babylon,  and  report  from  personal  observation  ? 
Nothing  can  be  more  true  or  timely  than  the  remark  of  the  sober  and  judi 
cious  Heeren,  (Ideen,  etc.  I.  2.  s.  170)  :  "  The  circle  of  our  own  experi 
ence  cannot,  as  a  matter  of  course,  furnish  us  with  the  measure  of  that, 
which,  in  other  countries,  in  a  different  climate,  and  in  different  circum 
stances,  is  possible.  Do  not  the  Egyptian  pyramids,  the  Chinese  wall,  and 
the  rock-temple  at  Elephante,  mock  as  it  were  at  our  criticism,  which  arro 
gates  to  itself  the  power  of  defining  the  limits  to  which  the  united  power  of 
whole  nations  can  go  ?"  In  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  this,  the  most  re 
cent  classical  critics  of  name  seem  to  be  united  in  the  opinion,  that  the 
more  Herodotus  and  some  other  ancient  historians  are  studied  and  under 
stood,  the  higher  will  their  credit  stand.  It  is  not  seemly,  then,  for  us  to 
assume  a  lofty  air  of  skepticism,  in  respect  to  such  an  obelisk-statue  as  that 
of  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  like  is  still  before  our  eyes,  and  is  beyond  de 
nial.  Look  at  Cleopatra's  Needle  ;  at  Pompey's  pillar ;  at  the  obelisk 
standing  in  Heliopolis,  near  Cairo,  sixty  feet  in  height,  more  than  2000 
years  old,  of  one  solid  mass  of  stone,  cut  out  of  the  quarry  at  Syene,  i.  e. 
at  the  cataracts  of  the  Nile,  and  floated  down  some  600  or  700  miles  to  its 
present  locality,  and  there  erected.  Will  Prof.  Lengerke  sarcastically  sug 
gest  here,  too,  that  we  have  another  "  story  of  a  certain  Benjamin  ?"  This 
last  obelisk,  moreover,  is  only  six  feet  and  a  half  square  at  the  base ;  and 
yet  it  stands,  and  has  more  than  2000  years  stood,  firm.  The  image  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  nine  feet  at  the  base,  and  was  one  third  higher  than 
the  one  at  Heliopolis.  Are  not  the  proportions  then  of  the  height  and  base 
of  the  Babylonian,  altogether  homogeneous  with  the  Egyptian  obelisks  ? 
These  range  from  four  and  a  half  to  twelve  feet  wide  at  the  base,  and  from 
fifty  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  in  height.  There  they  are,  too,  at  this  very 
moment,  palpable,  visible,  and  of  one  solid  mass — not  a  dream  or  phan 
tasy  of  some  wonder-loving  Jew  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  as  Lengerke 
would  fain  persuade  us,  in  respect  to  the  passage  under  examination.  If 
the  image  erected  by  Nebuchadnezzar  was  so  large  as  to  exceed  all  credi- 


loe's  Herod.  II.  p.  229.  But  all  this  amount  of  gold  in  Belus's  statue,  (if  indeed  it 
were  really  all  of  gold),  is  only  one  item  in  the  list  which  Ctesias  gives.  He  states 
that  the  statue  of  Uliea  weighed  1000  talents  ;  that  of  Mylitta,  i.  e.  Venus,  800  :  a 
table  for  the  idols,  500  ;  two  drinking  cups,  300  ;  two  censers,  60 ;  one  bowl  for  Ju 
piter,  1200;  for  the  other  two  statues  also  one  each,  1200  together;  amount  of  the 
whole,  5,500  talents  =  77,800,000  dollars. 


Exc.  IV.  ON  CHAP.  III.  1.  77 

bility,  what  must  be  said  of  one  which  Asseman  mentions,  in  his  Biblioth. 
Orient  II.  ?  The  passage  runs  thus :  "  In  the  year  866,  the  idol  of  the  sun 
in  Heliopolis,  a  city  of  Phenicia,  was  struck  with  lightning,  and  together 
with  the  temple  was  reduced  to  ashes.  It  is  said  that  it  was  150  cubits  high, 
and  75  broad." 

In  truth,  if  the  account  before  us  is  so  monstrously  incredible  as  some 
critics  of  a  recent  class  assert ;  if  the  incongruities  are  so  staring,  and  in 
such  high  relief;  then  what  kind  of  a  witling  was  he,  who  wrote  the  book 
of  Daniel  at  so  late  a  period  ?  Did  he  hope  to  make  the  impression  that 
the  book  was  true,  or  that  it  was  false  ?  Doubtless  the  former.  How  then 
could  he  write  such  incongruities  and  monstrosities,  that  would  wither  away 
at  the  scornful  rebuke  of  even  common  sense,  not  to  speak  of  searching 
criticism  ?  In  short,  in  whatever  light  we  look  at  the  matter  before  us, 
we  cannot  well  do  otherwise,  in  respect  to  the  difficulties  alleged  against  it, 
than  say  to  the  latest  advocate  of  liberal  criticism  on  the  book  of  Daniel,  to 
whom  I  have  just  now  referred,  —  Non  in  rebus,  sed  in  teipso.  A  deeper 
acquaintance  with  antiquity,  and  more  of  generous  candor,  would  help  very 
much  to  cure  the  malady  of  such  skepticism. 

To  take  leave  (for  it  is  time)  of  this  protracted  discussion,  I  would  merely 
remark,  that  as  the  great  plain  of  Mesopotamia  abounds  not  in  any  quar 
ries  of  stone,  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  the  mass  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  im 
age  was  of  this  material.  All  the  ruins  of  Babylon,  with  very  few  excep 
tions,  are  of  sun-baked  and  of  burnt  bricks.  It  is  barely  possible,  that  such 
an  obelisk  of  stone  might  have  been  floated  down  the  Euphrates,  from  the 
Armenian  mountains.  But  in  respect  to  making  fast  a  wooden  structure, 
so  slender,  and  of  such  a  height,  no  imaginable  serious  difficulty  could  ex 
ist,  any  more  than  our  ship-wrights  now  experience,  in  making  firm  masts 
that  are  higher,  and  have  all  the  pressure  of  the  sails  to  bear,  when  urged 
by  vehement  winds.  A  single  tree  of  fir,  or  cedar,  or  cypress,  could  easily 
have  been  found  in  the  Armenian  mountains,  which  might  be  set  very 
deeply  and  fastened  in  the  ground,  and  running  up  through  the  centre  of 
the  obelisk,  keep  it  secure  in  its  position.  Had  the  idol  been  of  stone,  it 
would  not  probably  have  been  either  gilt  or  plated.  All  Egyptian  analogy 
is  against  this.  But  if  it  were  of  wood,  and  was  surmounted  by  either  an 
image  of  the  natural  sun,  or  a  supposed  resemblance  of  Belus  wrought  as  a 
bust,  and  if  the  whole  was  then  gilded  or  plated  with  gold,  the  appearance 
would  be  striking,  and  at  least  in  harmony  with  the  pride  and  superstition 
of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

As  to  the  time  when  the  erection  of  this  image  took  place,  nothing  defi 
nite  is  stated  in  the  text,  and  we  are  cast  upon  conjecture.  In  all  proba 
bility,  the  last  time  that  Nebuchadnezzar  invaded  Judea  (B,  C.  588),  de 
stroyed  the  government,  "  rifled  all  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  God,  great 
and  small,  and  the  treasures  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  the  treasures  of 
the  king  and  of  his  princes,"  might  have  afforded  him  the  occasion  and  the 
means  of  erecting  the  idol  in  question,  as  the  monument  of  his  victories, 
and  as  a  token  of  gratitude  to  Belus.  Tyrant  as  he  was,  he  was  strongly 
tinctured  with  heathen  superstition.  Subsequent  to  the  first  siege  and  cap 
ture  of  Jerusalem,  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  rifling  the  temple  in  part  of  its 
furniture,  "  brought  the  vessels  into  the  treasure  house  of  his  god,"  Dan.  1: 
2.  When,  at  the  last  invasion,  he  had  obtained  possession  of  the  treasures 

7* 


78  CHAP.  III.  2. 

of  the  temple,  king,  and  nobles,  might  he  not  have  easily  erected  his  new 
idol  ?  And  is  not  this  a  probable  occurrence  at  the  period  in  question  ? 
The  return  from  the  frst  invasion  was  too  early  for  the  transactions  before 
us.  As  to  wealth,  it  should  be  remembered,  that  the  father  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar  had  helped  to  rifle  and  destroy  Nineveh  ;  and  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
himself  had  overrun  and  rifled  most  of  hither  Asia  and  Egypt,  before  he 
went  to  Babylon  to  assume  the  crown.  Lengerke  should  look  well  to  his  own 
position,  when  he  treats  with  a  sneer  the  opinion,  that  the  matter  before  us 
bears  the  impression  of  history,  arid  not  of  romance.  A  romance,  one  would 
be  apt  to  think,  would  have  given  a  different  view  of  a  merely  imaginary 
idol,  and  taken  care  to  make  it  more  analogous  to  those  in  the  temple  of 
Belus,  as  described  by  Herodotus  and  Ctesias. 

Some  have  supposed  the  statue  of  Belus,  mentioned  by  these  authors,  was 
the  same  which  is  brought  to  view  in  the  text  before  us.  But  that  was  placed 
in  the  temple  of  Belus ;  this,  on  the  plain  of  Dura,  (some  circular  intervale, 
as  the  word  X^W  imports),  near  to  Babylon.  Another  Dura  there  was, 
on  the  Tigris  ;  and  still  another  on  the  Euphrates,  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Chaboras  ;  see  Lex.  Neither  of  the  two  latter  could  be  the  one  in  question. 
The  word  ri2£3 ,  const.,  does  not  mean  merely  a  valley,  in  our  limited 
sense,  but  a  plain,  extended  flats.  So  in  Gen.  11:  2,  where  the  same  country 
is  meant  as  that  afterwards  occupied  by  Babylon.  Province  of  Babylon  shows 
that  the  writer  means  to  say,  that  the  statue  was  not  erected  within  the  city. 


(2)  And  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  sent  to  assemble  the  Satraps,  deputy  governors 
[or  praef'ects],  overseers,  chief  judges,  treasurers,  the  learned  in  law,  counsellors,  and 
all  officers  of  provinces,  to  come  to  the  dedication  of  the  image  which  king  Nebu 
chadnezzar  had  set  up. 

After  nbia  sent,  some  word  is  of  course  implied  which  indicates  messen 
gers,  i.  e.  agents  employed  to  give  publicity  to  the  summons  of  the  king. 
—  ttjasa ,  Peal  Inf.  —  K^Bi.'nffinK ,  emph.  form,  satraps  ;  this  and  most 
of  the  names  of  civil  officers  that  follow,  appear  to  be  wholly  or  partly 
derived  from  the  northern  Zend  or  Parsee  language.  The  most  probable 
etymology  of  the  words  is  inserted  in  the  Lex.,  and  it  would  be  needless 
to  repeat  it  here.  One  thing,  in  respect  to  these  names  in  general,  must 
be  obvious,  viz.  that  in  European  governments,  and  in  ours,  there  are  no 
officers  which  exactly  correspond  ;  so  that  an  exact  verbal  translation  in 
this  case  would  be  as  impossible  as  it  is  literally  to  translate  tribunus, 
consul,  and  the  like.  I  have  employed  Satrap,  because  the  word  is  now 
somewhat  common  among  us,  in  treating  of  oriental  history.  The  basis 
of  this  appellation  is  plainly  discernible  in  the  four  letters  (Cpitii)  of  the 
word  above.  It  designates  the  governor  of  a  whole  region,  province,  or 
country ;  and  frequently  the  office  amounted  to  a  Vice-regency  over  the 
whole  of  a  tributary  nation.  It  may  well  be  compared  with  the  modern 
office  of  Pasha  under  the  Turkish  government.  Officers  of  this  class  of 
course  stood  next  to  the  king  in  dignity ;  and  so  they  are  here  naturally 


named  first.  —  5^0  doubtless  designates  here  the  civil  officers  itext  in 
rank  to  the  Satraps.  I  have  rendered  it  deputy-governors,  intending  to 
designate  by  this  term  those  officers  in  different  portions  of  country  with 
in  a  Satrapy,  who  acted  in  lieu  of  the  chief  governor  or  Satrap,  pro  re 
nata,  and  whose  business  it  was  to  see  that  all  went  on  in  an  orderly 
manner.  Havernick  (p.  99)  supposes  it  to  designate  an  overseer  of  the 
State-council  or  Magi,  because  in  D^h.  2:  48  it  is  applied  in  such  a  sense 
to  Daniel.  But  I  take  the  generic  idea  of  the  word  ^yo  to  be  that  ofprae- 
fect,  vicarius  [sc.  principis]  ;  and  so  it  is  often  applied  to  the  Jewish  nobles 
and  overseers,  in  the  time  of  Ezra.  Ezr.  9:  2.  Neh.  2:  16.  4:  8,  13.  5:  7. 
7:  5.  12:  40.  There  is  scarcely  room  for  doubt,  that  the  word  designates 
the  order  of  civil  officers  in  the  provinces  next  to  that  of  Satraps.  — 
KrnriB  ,  emph.  pi.  of  JihB  =  fins  with  Dagh.  f.  implied  in  the  h  .  The 
etymology  is  somewhat  uncertain  ;  see  Lex.  It  designates  an  overseer  or 
praefect  of  a  small  province,  and  is  of  nearly  the  same  meaning,  to  all 
appearance,  as  the  preceding  word.  Still,  however,  it  probabty  designated 
a  class  of  officers,  who  might  not  indeed  be  unlike  to  the  N*5}p  as  to  rank, 
but  whose  duties  at  least  were  specifically  different.  —  Of  N^taTix  there 
can  be  little  or  no  doubt.  This  word  is  apparently  Semitic  ;  for  Ti$ 
means  magnificence,  and  ^ita  signifies  to  cut,  cut  off,  decide,  decree.  So  we 
have,  somewhat  plainly,  the  supreme  Judges  of  the  king's  court.  —  x'B'"Qiia  , 
put  for  and  =  s^ata,  (*i  for  t),  compounded,  as  it  would  seem,  of  a  Se 
mitic  root  and  a  Persian  termination,  see  Lex.  That  it  means  treasurers, 
there  is  no  good  room  for  doubt.  Comp.  taa  in  Lex.  —  xj'nsrtn  ,  emph.  pi. 
from  "On'n  ,  compounded  also  of  the  Semitic  trn  ,  law,  statute,  and  the 
Persian  formative  termination  -bar.  The  meaning  is  plain,  viz.  juris- 
consulti,  men  learned  in  law.  —  K^frBft  ,  emph.  pi.,  of  Semitic  origin  again, 


o    > 

like  the  Arabic    Jubo  Mufti,  counsellor,  one  who  responds  to  questions 


in  law,  or  respecting  right  ;  comp.  the  illustration  in  the  Lex.  — 
pi.  const.,  embraces  all  officers  not  specifically  named,  to  whom  any  con 
siderable  power  or  sway  was  committed,  i.  e.  public  civil  functionaries  or 
magistrates  ;  but  in  this  connection  it  plainly  does  not  comprise  those  of 
the  lowest  or  of  the  lower  classes,  inasmuch  as  these  would  add  no  impor 
tant  honor  to  the  dedication-feast  ;  and  their  presence,  moreover,  in  the 
provinces  was  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  peace  and  good  order, 
while  the  superior  officers  were  absent.  —  &*£*&  ,  Inf.  of  NPN  ,  with  the 
initial  quiescent  K  dropped  in  the  writing.  —  To  the  dedication  of  the 
image  ;  for  by  this  ceremony  of  consecration  or  dedication,  the  image  be 
came  a  public  and  authenticated  object  of  national  worship.  No  new  god 


80  CHAP.  III.  3,  4. 

is  mentioned  as  introduced  by  Nebuchadnezzar  on  this  occasion  ;  nor  is 
this  probable.  The  new  image,  however,  which  may  probably  be  re 
garded  as  a  votive  offering  on  the  part  of  the  king,  was  more  imposing 
and  conspicuous  in  appearance  than  any  that  had  been  made  before. 
Pride,  exultation,  superstition,  and  love  of  display,  all  combined  to  pro 
duce  this  new  colossal  structure.  —  ta^Ji  =  &*-px  Aph.  of  tfip,  with  a 
Hebraizing  form  as  to  the  consonants  ;  for  vowels,  see  §  10.  4.  2. 

In  respect  to  the  great  assemblage  of  officers,  on  this  occasion,  comp.  a 
similar  transaction  in  Est.  1:  3  seq.,  (probably  a  general  consultation  by 
Xerxes,  previous  to  his  invasion  of  Greece).  The  objection  made  to  both 
these  accounts,  viz.  that  such  a  desertion  of  their  posts  by  so  many  offi 
cers,  would  occasion  disorder  and  revolt  in  the  provinces,  can  have  but 
little  weight.  All  the  governments  of  the  East  were  military  ;  and 
everywhere  the  soldiers  remained  under  their  active  officers,  to  quell  any 
disturbance.  Such  a  warrior  as  Nebuchadnezzar  knew  well  how  to 
manage  matters  of  this  kind.  The  efficient  part  of  the  military  regime 
probably  remained  at  their  posts.  One  object  of  such  an  extensive  assem 
blage  doubtless  was  display  ;  but  the  principal  one  seems  to  have  been,  a 
determination  to  make  the  worship  of  the  new  idol  imposing  and  uni 
versal. 

(3)  Then  were  assembled  the  satraps,  deputy-governors,  overseers,  chief  judges, 
treasurers,  the  learned  in  law,  counsellors,  and  all  officers  of  provinces,  for  the  dedi 
cation  of  the  image  which  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  had  set  up  ;  and  they  stood 
before  the  image  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  set  up. 

•paxj3  =  "pa^g  ,  §  22.  1  ad  fin.  —  bspb  ,  lit.  at  the  before,  used  as  a 
preposition,  and  translated  before. 

(4)  And  a  herald  proclaimed  aloud  :  To  you,  ye  people,  nations,  and  tongues,  is 
it  commanded  ; 


Kl  "H3  ,  emph.,  the  Norn.  abs.  11*13  =  ItoS  ,  §  28.  b.  6.  —  x*\$  ,  Part., 
denoting  continued  or  repeated  action.  —  b^na  ,  in  pause,  lit.  with  strength 
or  might  ;  which,  when  applied  to  the  voice,  of  course  means  with  loud- 
ness,  i.  e.  a  herald  loudly  proclaimed.  —  T79K  >  lit-  do  they  command,  for 
ia$  in  Chald.  often  means  command  ;  see  on  1:  3.  An  indef.  or  imper 
sonal  verb  is  expressed  by  the  3d  sing,  or  plur.,  §  49.  3.  a.  b  ;  and  more 
generally  requires  to  be  translated  by  the  passive  voice  ;  see  ib.  — 
X*p.a2  ,  emph.  pi.  ;  the  Hebrew,  instead  of  dhE3  sometimes  has  s^aas  ; 
the  Aramaean  does  not  write  the  first  a  by  a  Dagh.  f.,  as  is  usual  in  most 
derivates  of  ss  ,  but  presents  the  form  in  full  ;  for  the  usual  formation 
of  nouns  which  double  the  middle  radical,  see  §  28.  b. 


CHAP.  III.  5.  81 


(5)  At  the  time  when  ye  shall  hear  the  sound  of  the  cornet,  pipe,  harp,  sambuk, 
psaltery,  bagpipe,  and  all  kinds  of  music,  ye  shall  fall  down  and  worship  the  golden 
image,  which  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  hath  set  up. 


bj?  =  Heb.  bip  .  —  &»*i]2  ,  emph.  of  ftp  ,  a  Hebraizing  Segholate, 
lit.  horn,  and  so  cornet  (from  cornu)  well  translates  it.  We  might  com 
pare,  for  illustration,  our  French  horn.  —  strpp'hda  (from  pittj  to  whistle) 
designates  a  shrill  piping  instrument  like  a  fife.  The  Greeks  have  trans 
ferred  the  word  to  their  language,  e.  g.  GVQty'E,  GVQiy,  ffftptypg,  ovQiyyiov, 
and  hence  the  verbs  GVQI^W  and  cvgiGGto,  the  noun  denoting  the  reed-pipe 
or  Pan-flute.  That  it  was  a  shrill,  loud  instrument,  is  clear,  since  p'n^ 
is  employed  to  denote  the  giving  of  the  signal  sound  for  the  assemblage 
of  distant  troops,  Isa.  5:26.  Fife  comes  the  nearest  to  it,  perhaps,  of  any 
instrument  in  use  among  us.  —  &'"ip"15  »  the  vowels  here,  and  in  vs.  7,  10 
below,  belong  to  the  Qeri  orthography,  viz.  D'inp  .  The  Kethibh  how 
ever  is  preferable,  which  would  read  b'nriip,  seemingly  the  Greek  xi&aQift 
harp  or  guitar  ;  for  the  word  seems  to  be,  of  itself,  rather  generic  than 
specific,  and  to  designate  stringed  instruments  beaten  with  the  fingers. 
The  allegation,  that  the  word  is  a  Greek  one,  in  Daniel,  appears  to  have 
little  solid  foundation.  Strabo  seems  to  have  settled  this  question  (x.  3)  : 
xiftnoav  Idtfiativ  QctGawv,  beating  the  Asiatic  harp  ;  and  Lengerke  him 
self  confesses  the  probability,  that  both  the  Greek  and  Chald.  word 
comes  from  the  Persian  Sitareh,  which  means  a  six-stringed  instrument, 
—  XSSD  ,  in  vs.  10,  15,  written  XDSto  (Sin  for  Samekh],  was  a  triangular 
instrument,  furnished  with  strings,  and  beaten  with  the  fingers  or  a  plec 
trum.  Athenaeus  (Deip.  iv.  23)  says  :  SVQWV  evavfid  yi\Giv  eivai,  i.  e. 
one  says  it  is  a  Syrian  invention.  The  variations  of  the  Greek  orthography 
show  that  it  was  probably  a  foreign  word,  about  the  manner  of  spelling 
which  there  was  no  fixed  rule,  e.  g.  Gapfiiw],  Gappvxrj,  ^ap/tiMf,  ^a^flvxn, 
lappyxfy  and  (abridged)  Gappa.  Not  having  any  instrument  among  us  that 
specifically  resembles  it,  I  have  felt  obliged  merely  to  transfer  the  word,  as 
we  do  shekel,  epha,  bath,  and  many  others  of  the  Hebrew.  It  resembles 
the  khanoon  of  Cairo,  as  described  by  Mr.  Lane  in  his  well  known  work, 
Modern  Egypt,  II.  p.  71.  -  —  "pljni&Q,  psaltery  or  dulcimer,  which  trans 
lation,  however,  explains  nothing,  inasmuch  as  it  merely  designates  an 
instrument,  the  music  of  which  was  accompanied  by  the  voice  of  the 
player  ;  and  of  these  there  were  many  kinds.  In  Egypt  they  have  an 

instrument  evidently  of  the  same  name,    ydaxw  ?  santir,  (Mr.  Lane? 


p.  77,  writes  it  sunteer),  which  is  a  species  of  the  dulcimer,  is  stringed, 
and  is  beaten  with  two  small  sticks.    This  also  resembles  the  khanoon. 


82  CHAP.  III.  5. 

Those  who  advocate  the  late  authorship  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  say  with 
great  confidence,  that  the  writer  must  have  lived  where  he  became  ac 
quainted  with  Greek,  since  this  word  is  plainly  the  Greek  yulirtQiov,  the  I 
being  exchanged  for  n  in  the  Chaldee  —  an  exchange  which  was  very  com 
mon  ;  see  in  Lex.  under  "b  and  3  .  But  although  there  can  be  little  room 
to  doubt,  that  both  the  Greek  and  Chaldee  words  are  substantially  the  same, 
yet  it  is  not  quite  so  obvious  from  what  language  the  original  name  was  de 
rived.  In  the  Chaldee  "1PI3&S  ,  (=  the  Egyptian  Santir),  one  does  not  see 
why  the  3  should  have  been  inserted  instead  of  the  ^  which  would  correctly 
represent  the  Greek  form  ;  for  b  is  as  congruous  as  3  after  the  G  ;  while  in 
the  Greek  form,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  Chaldee  D  might  be  changed  to  A, 
because  thus  the  word  would  bear  a  seeming  relation  to  the  verb  yattu. 
In  other  words,  the  Greeks  had  an  evident  motive  to  make  the  change  in 
question  :  the  Chaldee  writer  had  none.  I  should  not  hesitate  then  to  say, 
that  the  evidence  preponderates  in  favor  of  an  origin  not  Greek,  were  it  not 
that  the  first  syllable  ~303  looks  like  an  attempt  to  translate  the  Greek  y>  in 
yafaijQtov,  and  such  a  syllable  seems  to  be  one  which  is  not  of  the  usual 
Semitic  formation.  But  as  the  P  in  Egyptian  Avords  is  a  masc.  preformative, 
(as  in  niHB),  the  Arabians  in  Egypt  have  dropped  it,  and  now  sound  the 
word  santir,  while  the  Chaldeans  retained  it.  We  may  account  for  the 
Chaldee  form,  without  any  reference  to  the  Greek  language,  by  supposing 
the  name  to  have  come  from  Egypt.  But  be  all  this  as  it  may,  Greek  instru 
ments  of  music,  with  their  names,  might  easily  have  wandered  to  Babylon, 
the  great  metropolis  of  all  the  commerce  between  the  East  and  the  West. 

Havernick  suggests  for  the  word  "p'nfnSCB  the  etymology  of  G5  ,  extremity 
(of  the  hand),  and  "ins  to  strike,  beat  ;  which  name  thus  explained  may  seem 
at  first  view  to  fit  the  instrument  in  question  well  enough,  for  it  might  be 
stricken  with  the  hand.  To  this  suggestion  Lengerke  has  replied  by  an  ar 
gument  very  common  in  his  book,  viz.  a  conspicuous  [  !  ]  .  There  can  be 
no  doubt,  however,  that  G5  means  the  extremity  of  the  hand  (Dan.  5:  5,  24)  ; 
but  ^iPS  means  something  more  than  to  atrike,  for  it  is  applied  to  striking  off 
leaves  from  a  tree  (Dan.  4:  ll),  to  setting  loose  captives  (Ps.  105:  20),  to 
loosening  the  hand  by  putting  it  into  action,  etc.,  (Job  6:  9).  To  beat  a 
stringed  instrument  seems  to  be  quite  another  kind  of  action.  There  is  inge 
nuity  enough,  however,  in  this  etymology,  to  deserve  something  more  than 
an  exclamation  point  in  the  way  of  answer.  From  the  Egyptian  name  santir, 
now  in  use  among  the  Arabs  in  Cairo,  we  may  well  argue  the  probability 
that  the  instrument  was  Egyptian  in  its  origin  and  name.  If  so,  the  end 
ing  "p—  is  plural,  and  not  an  imitation,  in  the  sing.,  of  the  Greek  ending  -tov, 
as  Lengerke  and  others  have  supposed.  That  the  other  nouns  are  of  the  sing., 
is  no  conclusive  argument  for  the  sing,  here  ;  for  if,  among  the  Chaldeans, 
the  name,  from  some  particular  cause  (as  in  many  other  cases),  assumed  a 
plural  form  (as  it  surely  might  do)  ,  that  would  of  course  be,  here  employed. 
So  in  Hebrew  we  have  D^B'iJ  ,  but  the  plur.  is  not  necessary  nor  usual  in 
Arabic. 


in  v.  15  is  written  r-pjn's^t:,  and  in  v.  10  ftwb  •  If  the 
word  be  of  Greek  origin,  the  latter  orthography  (which  the  Syriac  also 
exhibits,  and  whicb  agrees  with  a/gpcoy,  reed,  tube),  would  be  sufficiently 


CHAP.  III.  5.  83 

descriptive  ;  for  the  instrument  was  a  tube.  If  however  the  Greek  cvft- 
cpavt'a  (harmony)  is  the  etymon  of  the  Chaldee  name,  this  would  be  still 
more  exactly  descriptive  ;  for  the  instrument,  (still  used  in  Egypt,  and 
called  summarah  or  zummarah,  Lane,  ut  sup.  II.  p.  81),  is  a  double  one, 
giving  two  symphonious  sounds.  Mr.  Lane  has  given  us  a  drawing  of  it, 
II.  p.  82.  It  is  very  common  in  the  concert  songs  of  the  boatmen  on  the 
Nile.  Polybius  (Frag,  xxvi,  xxxi,  Tom.  IV.  Sch weigh.)  describes  An- 
tiochus  Epiphanes  as  "going  to  feasts  with  horn  and  symphony  (ovftqoo- 
viag)  ;"  and  tells  us  that  the  same  instrument  gave  the  signal  for  that  king, 
when  he  entered  upon  a  contest  in  the  games.  The  Hebrew  interpreters 
translate  the  word  into  their  language  by  331$,  and  explain  it  as  mean 
ing  a  double  flute  (as  in  Lane,  sup.)  or  shalm.  If  it  is  derived  from  a 
Semitic  root,  the  ending  rr-  may  be  of  a  fern,  adjective  nature,  and 
thus  may  be  as  it  were  merely  formative.  In  Asia  Minor,  the  same  in 
strument,  as  seems  probable,  is  called  Sambonga ;  in  Italy,  Zambogna. 
That  it  was  a  wind-instrument,  there  can  be  no  good  room  to  doubt ;  but 
whether  bag-pipe  is  the  best  translation  of  the  word,  may  perhaps  be 
doubted. 

Fall  down  and  worship,  both  combined,  show  the  thorough  homage  or 
worship  demanded  for  the  new  idol.  Prostration  is  both  a  preparatory 
act  for  worship,  and  one  which  accompanies  worship  itself. 

Mr.  Lane,  however,  tells  us  that  one  species  of  the  zumarah  "  is  a  rude 
kind  of  bag-pipe,  .  .  .  its  bag  being  a  small  goat's  skin."  p.  83.  I  have, 
therefore  kept  the  word  bag-pipe  in  the  translation.  —  The  assumption  that 
the  word  JOa's^O  is  the  genuine  form,  and  the  derivation  of  it  from  ",£&  , 
contignavit,  (so  C.  B.  Michaelis),  will  hardly  bear.  To  plank  or  timber  over 
anything,  corresponds  not  at  all  to  the  form  of  the  instrument.  If  the  orthog 
raphy  JO2£*O  be  adopted,  vlcpor  seems  to  be  the  natural  etymon.  On  the 
whole,  the  probability  of  a  Greek  origin  here  seems  to  be  somewhat  strong. 
But  the  reasoning  from  it,  by  Bleek,  Lengerke,  and  others,  that  the  writer 
borrowed  the  name  from  the  Greek  circle  in  which  he  lived,  seems  to  mani 
fest  an  eagerness  to  make  much  of  a  very  small  circumstance.  How  comes 
it,  one  may  fairly  ask,  that  the  writer,  among  the  names  of  all  his  civil  and 
military  officers,  has  not  one  of  Greek  origin  ?  How  comes  it,  that  in  the 
present  case,  only  one  of  all  the  instruments  named  has,  on  the  whole,  a 
probable  Greek  origin  ?  How  did  a  writer  in  Palestine,  so  late  as  140  or 
150  B.  C.,  become  so  familiar  with  all  these  names  in  our  context,  (Assyro- 
Medo-Persico-Semitic  names  too),  which,  as  a  mere  Hebrew  of  such  a  late 
period,  he  would  be  little  likely  to  know  ?  Then  as  to  the  intercourse  of  the 
East  and  the  West  —  had  not  Sennacherib  overrun  a  large  portion  of  Asia 
Minor  and  Egypt,  more  than  a  century  before  Daniel  lived  ?  Does  not  Be- 
rosus  relate  that  he  even  built  Tarsus  in  Cilicia  ?  Did  not  Nebuchadnezzar 
himself  overrun  most  of  those  regions,  before  he  took  the  crown  ?  And  as 
to  commercial  intercourse  —  Babylon  was,  long  before  Nebuchadnezzar's 
time,  the  metropolis  of  the  world.  That  a  musical  instrument,  with  its  name, 


84  CHAP.  III.  6,  7. 

should  have  been  transferred  from  Grecian  countries  to  Babylon,  in  this 
state  of  affairs,  before  Daniel  came  upon  the  stage,  is  a  thing  so  probable 
and  so  very  feasible,  that  nothing  can  be  made  out  on  any  such  ground  as 
this,  against  the  ordinary  date  of  the  book  of  Daniel.  The  whole  thing  is  in 
significant,  as  an  argument.  It  cannot  amount  to  a  grain  of  sand,  in  the 
balance  by  which  the  time  of  writing  the  book  is  to  be  adjusted  ;  for  nothing 
can  be  more  probable,  than  that  such  a  luxurious  and  pleasure-loving  city 
as  Babylon,  should  seek  on  all  sides  for  every  means  of  increasing  gratifica 
tion  to  the  eye  and  ear.  Foreign  musical  instruments  would  be  sought  after 
with  the  same,  or  with  the  like,  avidity  which  is  manifested  in  all  great  cities 
of  the  present  day,  in  respect  to  objects  of  the  same  nature. 

(6)  And  whosoever  shall  not  fall  down  and  worship,  at  that  very  moment  shall  be 
cast  into  the  midst  of  the  furnace  of  burning  fire. 

^31,  Fut.  (-)  of  ^S3 ,  §18.  ad  fin. —  xnsia ,  emph.  of  nsw,  which 
has  tf  (not  the  normal  ir  with  Dagh.  f.  after  it)  because  of  the  Gntt., 
§  29.  6  c.  Literally  n?d  ,  from  NSIB  ,  to  look,  means  look,  wink,  twinkling 
of  an  eye,  (not  hour  in  the  English  sense).  So  I  have  translated  it  mo 
ment,  (ad  sensum).  The  fi2  (in  it)  is  the  usual  anticipative  pronoun, 
which  strengthens  the  definiteness  of  the  whole  expression  =  in  that 
very  moment;  §  43.  6.  b.  This  special  idiom  is  much  more  frequent  still 
in  the  Syriac.  —  JK^rn  ,  Ithpeal,  p.  72.  —  Kiab ,  const,  of  la  (gav),  for 
in  the  const,  state  the  1  becomes  quiescent,  and  the  word  is  written  fcda 
or  '".a;  comp.  rvra ,  const,  nia  in  Heb. — •'jinx,  root  ",3n  to  smoke ;  for 
•jWnx  with  K  as  a  form,  prefix,  see  §  28.  c.  16.  Comp.  in  verbs  ss,  pT; 
for  ppT.j  Gramm.  p.  63.  —  KPTpj^,  fern.  Part,  of  ^  ,  the  second  syl 
lable  being  written  with  a  superfluous  (•*),  probably  to  denote,  in  the  un 
pointed  text,  that  it  was  to  be  pronounced  with  Hhireq  (short)  instead  of 
Seghol.  The  masc.  Part,  is  ^^  .  In  vs.  23  and  26,  the  word  is  writ 
ten  a*Pni?h .  That  burning  was  not  an  unusual  punishment  in  the  East, 
is  sufficiently  known.  As  to  the  Persians,  see  Brissonius  De  Reg.  Pers.  II. 
cap.  216.  So  the  Hebrews,  2  Sam.  12: 31,  comp.  Matt.  5:  22.  Jer.  29:  22 
mentions  a  certain  "  Zedekiah  and  Ahab,  whom  the  king  of  Babylon 
roasted  in  the  fire."  This  then  was  a  favorite  method  of  punishment  with 
Nebuchadnezzar;  and  Chardin  (who  was  in  Persia,  1671 — 77)  relates, 
that  in  a  time  of  scarcity,  two  furnaces  of  fire  were  kept  burning  a  whole 
month,  in  order  to  consume  such  as  exacted  more  than  the  lawful  price 
for  food ;  Voyages,  VI,  p.118.  At  all  events,  it  agrees  well  with  the  charac 
ter  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  threaten  such  a  punishment;  comp.  2:  5. 
3:  29. 

(7)  Because  of  this,  at  the  very  time  when  all  the  nations  heard  the  sound  of  the 
cornet,  pipe,  harp,  sambuk,  psaltery,  and  all  kinds  of  music —  all  these  nations,  peo- 


CHAP.  in.  8—12.  85 

pie,  and  tongues,  falling  down,  worshipped  the  golden  image  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
the  king  had  set  up. 

The  Participles  'pVBlJ  and  'p'tte  (instead  of  verbs)  are  well  adapted  to 
denote  the  continuance  and  repetition  of  religious  prostration.  The 
•"Pi'sraiO  is  omitted  in  this  list  of  the  music;  like  to  what  we  have  seen 
before,  in  respect  to  some  of  the  classes  of  the  Magi.  Omissions  of  such 
a  nature  are  a  characteristic  of  the  writer's  style.  For  x:rt  jna  ,  see 
§  43.  6.  b. 

(8)  On  account  of  this,  at  the  very  same  time,  men  who  were  Clialdeans  drew 
near,  and  made  accusation  against  the  Jews. 


-ip,  3  plur.  Peal,  see  in  §  12.  2.  1.  —  l^.aa,  pi.  irreg.  of  "Da,  with 
form  as  if  from  anaa  .  —  "iimang  ^3X,  lit.  devoured  the  pieces  of  them, 
a  figurative  expression  indicating  calumny,  slander,  malignant  accusation, 
etc.  ;  the  noun  pi.,  with  pi.  suff.,  is  from  ]np  .  For  the  pron.  suff.  antici- 
pative,  §  43.  6.  b.  —  ^  a  mere  sign  of  the  Gen.,  §  56.  1.  The  form  of 
expression  here  is  not  widely  different  from  the  figurative  sense  of  ro- 
dere,  mordere,  dente  carpere,  etc.,  in  Latin.  The  Arabians  express  the 
same  idea  by  the  phrase,  eating  the  flesh  of  a  brother,  etc.  The  principal 
cause  of  the  accusation  was  probably  a  malignant  jealousy  towards  the 
young  and  aspiring  Hebrews,  who  were  already  invested  with  desirable 
offices.  Possibly  superstition,  or  (last  and  least  of  all)  loyalty,  might 
have  been  the  moving  cause  of  their  conduct. 

(9)  They  addressed  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king,  and  said  :  0  king,  live  forever  ! 

l'3?>,  Peal,  p.  72.  The  sentence  is  continued  by  a  participle,  T*!7?**  > 
used  in  the  same  manner  as  a  verb.  This  mixed  construction  is  frequent 
in  Heb.  and  Chaldee. 

(10)  Thou,  0  king,  didst  establish  a  decree,  that  every  man,  who  should  hear  the 
sound  of  the  cornet,  pipe,  harp,  samhuk,  psaltery,  bag-pipe,  and  all  kinds  of  music, 
should  fall  down  and  worship  the  golden  image; 


Here  the  vowels  in  rnab'so  belong  to  the  marginal  Qeri,  rrpa^C  ;  see 
on  v.  5. 

(11)  And  whosoever  would  not  fall  down  and  worship,  he  should  be  cast  into  the 
midst  of  the  furnace  of  burning  fire. 

The  repetition  of  the  decree  in  v.  6  is,  as  usual,  very  close  and  exact  ; 
and  we  often  find  the  like  in  Homer,  and  other  ancient  writers.  Only 
the  circumstance,  XPISEJ  fna  is  omitted. 

(12)  There  are  men,  Jews,  whom  thou  hast  appointed  over  the  business  of  the 
province  of  Babylon,  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego  —  those  men  pay  no  regard 

8 


86  CHAP.  III.  13,  14. 

to  thee,  0  king  ;  thy  gods  they  do  not  serve,  and  the  golden  image  which  thou  hast 
set  up,  they  do  not  worship. 


For  (T)  in  'p'ina  ,  see  on  v.  8.  —  ^'ftST;  ..."*!,  whom,  ^  is  like  the  He 
brew  -H9K  followed  by  a  pronoun,  which  gives  to  it  a  relative  sense. 
rg  =  nx  of  the  Heb.,  and  is  a  mere  sign  of  the  Ace.  For  the  seq.,  see 
on  2:  48.  —  dso  .  .  .  *rab  xb  pay  no  respect  or  regard,  lit.  do  not  place  or 
fix  the  mind.  —  tpbs  is  noted  in  the  Qeri  as  having  a  superfluous  Yodh. 
But  bs  with  a  suff.  often  assumes,  as  here,  the  plur.  form,  and  the  Ke- 
thibh  is  the  preferable  reading.  —  Tpn^xb  ,  Ace.  pi.  with  suff.,  for  b  see 
§  56.  2.  Here  again  the  Qeri  repudiates  the  plural,  and  marks  (•*)  as 
superfluous.  But  wrongly.  The  malignant  courtiers  doubtless  mean  to 
accuse  the  Hebrews  of  impiety  toward  the  Babylonian  gods  in  general, 
as  well  as  towards  the  new  idol.  The  first  syllable  (~xb)  is  a  contract 
form  of  &6  ,  as  usual. 

(13)  Then  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  a  furious  rage,  commanded  to  bring  Shadrach,Me- 
shach,  and  Abednego  ;  then  those  men  were  brought  before  the  king. 


^n  is  like  nouns  in  §  28.  a.  2.  Winer  has  neglected  to  mark  it  in  its 
proper  place,  viz.  §  29.  6.  Both  nouns  lit.  thus  :  in  rage  and  fury,  i.  e. 
in  a  furious  rage.  —  ft  wnb  ,  Aph.  Inf.  of  xrx  ,  with  ft  for  x  prefix  forma 
tive.  —  7|"3*lizJ!3  '  "^  before  the  Ace.  again.  —  l^ft  »  a  form  sui  generis, 
which  seems  to  be  a  passive  of  the  Aph.  ^ryift  from  NPX  ,  and  to  corre 
spond  with  the  Heb.  Hophal  in  meaning.  See  Lex.  ;  and  see  also  a  fern. 
form  of  the  verb  which  is  of  the  same  nature,  in  6:  18.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  find  analogies  for  the  pointing  of  these  forms.  If  it  is  correct, 
they  must  belong  to  dialect  in  a  narrow  sense. 

(14)  Nebuchadnezzar  addressed  them  and  said:  Is  it  of  design,  Shadrach,  Me- 
shach,  and  Abednego,  that  ye  do  not  serve  my  gods,  nor  worship  the  golden  image 
that  I  have  set  up  ? 


Tax  ,  Part.  —  In  N'lSft  ,  the  ft  is  interrogative.  If  the  noun  comes  from 
the  verb  K'lS  ,  insidiari,  it  would  seem  to  intimate  wily  design  ;  which 
meaning  is  not  improbable.  See  other  conjectures  in  Leng.  in  loc.  — 
•paTV'X,  i.e.  T^X  (is)  with  pi.  form,  and  suff.  constituting  its  subject; 
both  are  united  with  the  participle  that  follows  ;  §  47.  1.  b.  The  king, 
seemingly  with  more  than  usual  moderation,  first  inquires  into  the  truth  of 
the  accusation.  He  probably  suspected  the  accusers  of  envious  motives, 
and  was  desirous  of  sparing  these  Hebrews  on  whom  he  had  bestowed 
special  favors.  In  n^^^ft  ,  the  final  syllable  would  regularly  have  a 
Tseri  (-),  but  in  a  closed  syllable,  this  is  occasionally  shortened  into  (-), 
see  p.  48,  under  a. 


CHAP.  III.  15.  87 

(15)  Now  if  ye  are  ready,  that,  at  the  time  when  ye  shall  hear  the  sound  of  the 
cornet,  pipe,  harp,  sarnbuk.  psaltery,  and  bag-pipe,  and  all  kinds  of  music,  ye  will  fall 
down  and  worship  the  image  which  I  have  made  — but  if  ye  will  not  worship,  in  that 
very  moment  ye  shall  be  cast  into  the  midst  of  a  furnace  of  burning  fire  ;  and  who  is 
that  god  which  will  deliver  you  out  of  my  hand  ? 

The  like  GUOMJGIS  we  have  in  Ex.  32:  32  ;  but  Zecb.  6:  15.  Jer.  12: 
16,  17.  1  Sam.  12:  14,  15,  referred  to  by  Leng.,  are  of  another  tenor. 
In  Homer  (II.  I.  135  seq.)  is  a  case  of  the  same  nature.  Com  p.  also 
Thucyd.  III.  3.  IV.13.  A  plain  case  of  the  same  nature  is  in  Lukel3:  9. 
I^QS]  .  .  .  I'n  TT*??  >  tne  first  is  a  plur-  adj.  from  ^rtf .  The  ^  that  fol 
lows,  belongs  to  the  subsequent  ",sibBP]  2  plur.  Fut.,  in  the  office  of  the 
conjunctive  that.  It  would  be  an  equally  correct  version,  as  to  the  sense,  to 
transfer  "pl^rs  and  put  it  immediately  before  the  verb,  and  then  render 
it  adverbially  thus :  If  ye  will  readily  fall  down,  etc.  But  I  have  en 
deavored  to  imitate,  with  some  good  degree  of  exactness  here,  the  form 
of  expression  in  the  original.  —  After  the  words  which  I  have  made, 
there  is  a  GiwmjGiS,  the  king  suppressing  the  declaration  of  sa ,  it  is  well, 
or  something  equivalent  to  this.  So  all  the  ancient  versions ;  and  so  Ju- 
nius,  De  Wette,  and  most  others.  Havernick  :  "  If  ye  will  hear  .  .  .  then 
shall  ye  fall  down,"  etc.  Inadmissible,  because  TTir  is  not  appropriate  to 
such  a  conditional  sentence,  nor  is  such  a  sentence  appropriate  to  the 
feelings  of  the  king.  But  the  threat,  at  the  end  of  the  next  clause,  comes 
out  in  full ;  and  the  antithesis  to  the  preceding  clause  is  made  plain  by 
the  Kb  -,n  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause.  It  is  natural  to  suppose, 
that  the  king  discerned  a  refusal  in  the  looks  of  the  accused,  which,  as  it 
kindled  his  rage,  led  him  to  suppress  the  sa  he  was  about  to  utter,  and 
hasten  to  the  threat.  —  Who  is  that  god,  etc.,  is  designed  to  give  efficiency 
to  the  threat,  by  suggesting  the  impossibility  of  preventing  its  execution. 
Had  the  king  reflected  on  the  power  of  that  God  who  had  revealed  secrets 
to  Daniel,  he  might  have  hesitated  to  utter  a  challenge  so  audacious. 
"Furious  rage"  however  rarely  reflects,  but  is  ever  prone  to  threaten. 
Altogether  like  to  this  was  Sennacherib's  boasting  and  challenging ;  see 
Isa.  37:  10  seq.  2  K.  18:  30—35.  19: 10.  This  whole  matter,  with  the 
words  uttered,  is  very  graphic,  and  presents  us  with  some  characteristics 
of  oriental  despots  altogether  genuine.  In  "pDpnr1:^  we  have  a  kind  of 
pluriliteral  form,  or  at  least  an  unusual  conjugation,  §  14.  Coming  from 
atia  ,  it  is  formed  like  a  Poel,  or  rather  a  Pdel,  where  the  Dagh.  f.  would 
be  normally  written  in  the  t ,  but  here  it  goes  into  a  Quiescent  with  a 
compensative  long  vowel  (^-)  ;  hence  S'n/nr  =  S"pd  instead  of  a-nr  . 
The  penult  syllable  (in)  is  shortened  because  it  loses  the  accent,  which 
rests  on  the  ultimate.  —  "^  ,  in  pause  for  ^  . 


88  CHAP.  III.  16. 

(16)    Shadra"h,  Meshach,  and  Abed  ncgo,  answered  king  Nebuchadnezzar,  and 
said  :  We  arc  not  under  any  necessity  to  answer  thee  a  word  in  respect  to  this  matter. 


•prran  ,  Part,  of  rvan  ,  n  for  the  regular  n  because  of  the  Gutt.;  lit.  we 
are  not  necessitated.  —  ^nsarnb  ,  Aph.  Inf.  of  a*iti  (p.  69),  with  the  end 
ing  n^i-,  because  of  the  suff.,  p.  56.  e.  The  matter  about  which  they  de 
clined  to  give  any  answer,  was  Nebuchadnezzar's  threat  in  the  preceding 
declaration.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  critics,  whether 
ttn  should  be  joined  with  dr«r3  ,  or  be  separated  from  it,  as  the  distinctive 
accent  upon  it  indicates  that  it  should  be.  Grammar  allows  either  method 
of  construction.  Out  of  deference  to  the  accents,  I  have  followed  the 
latter  method;  which  may  be  done,  for  WPB  =  irn  ,  and  to  answer  thee 
a  word  or  by  a  word,  makes  good  sense.  In  case  the  first  method  of 
construction  should  be  preferred,  then  one  may  regard  nw  as  placed  be 
fore  its  noun,  in  order  to  indicate  that  it  is  emphatic. 

Lengerke,  as  usual,  turns  this  account  of  the  demeanor  of  the  three  He 
brews,  into  an  argument  for  the  lateness  of  the  book.  It  savors,  as  he  thinks, 
only  of  the  superstition  of  the  Maccabaean  age,  when  the  Jews  thought  it  a 
glory  to  suffer  martyrdom  rather  than  sacrifice  to  idols  at  the  bidding  of  An- 
tiochus  Epiphanes.  "  We  find,"  says  he  (p.  132),  "  a  like  speech  in  2  Mace. 
7:  2,  although  somewhat  less  pert  (kecke)."  Vain,  he  asserts,  is  the  de 
fence  of  the  young  Jews  by  Hengstenberg  and  Havernick.  On  the  other 
hand,  Lengerke  accuses  these  martyrs  of  an  uncivil  silence,  on  this  occasion, 
and  of  "precipitating  themselves  inconsiderately  (leichtsinnig)  into  danger." 
Was  it  so,  then,  that  a  pious  Jew  could  hold  himself  at  liberty  to  equivocate 
on  such  an  occasion,  and  renounce  his  obedience  to  the  two  commands  which 
stand  at  the  head  of  the  Decalogue  ?  Is  he  therefore  a  simpleton  and  a  fanatic, 
who  would  cast  himself  on  divine  Providence  in  such  a  case,  and  leave  the 
consequences  to  God,  while  he  persevered  in  the  plain  path  of  duty  ? 
If  so,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  worthies  named  in  Heb.  xi.  ?  What  of  those 
"  who  were  beheaded  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus  and  for  the  word  of  God, 
who  refused  to  worship  the  beast  and  his  image  ?"  Rev.  20:  4.  The  writer 
of  the  Apocalypse  counts  such  peculiarly  "  blessed  and  holy,  inasmuch  as 
they  have  part  in  the  first  resurrection,"  Rev.  20:  6.  Are  not  the  very  He 
brews  now  in  question  placed  among  such  worthies  inHeb.l  1:  34  ?  But  enough. 
All  men  have  united  in  praising  the  constancy,  the  fidelity,  and  the  fearless 
ness  of  martyrs  in  a  good  cause.  Those  now  before  us  need  no  defence 
from  the  interpreter.  Lengerke  has  very  probably  disclosed  here  his  own 
feelings,  and  thus  virtually  told  us  what  he  would  do  on  such  an  occasion. 
Without  calling  in  question  what  he  would  do,  we  may  well  be  content  with 
the  course  which  the  noble  Hebrews  pursued.  Lengerke  would  have  us 
believe,  that  such  superstition  or  fanaticism  belonged  only  to  the  Maccabaean 
times.  What  then  are  we  to  think  of  the  martyrdom  which  so  many  prophets 
underwent,  and  which  is  attributed  to  the  ancient  Jews,  both  in  the  Old 
Test,  and  the  New?  And  is  it  in  any  measure  to  be  credited,  that  the  Mac 
cabaean  times  were  the  only  ones,  which  produced  men  who  were  ready  to 
expose  themselves  to  death,  rather  than  deny  or  dishonor  the  living  God  ? 


CHAP.  III.  17,18.  89 

(17)  If  our  God  whom  we  serve  is  able  to  deliver  us,  from  the  furnace  of  burning 
fire  and  from  thy  hand,  0  king,  he  may  deliver. 

in  is  here  rendered  by  the  ancient  Versions/or  ;  by  most  moderns,  ec- 
ce,  lo  !  No  doubt  the  word  has  sometimes  such  a  meaning.  But  here  it 
seems  plainly  to  be  the  antithesis  of  xb  h,!i  ,  if  not,  in  v.  18.  The  mean 
ing,  after  all,  is  one  which  does  not  necessarily  imply  doubt  or  uncertainty. 
The  sense  which  I  take  to  be  conveyed,  might  be  expressed  thus  :  "  If  it 
so  be  that  there  is  a  God  able,  etc."  The  amount  of  the  matter  then  is, 
that  instead  of  directly  and  positively  asserting  that  God  will  deliver 
them,  they  modestly  suggest  to  the  angry  tyrant,  that  this  may  be  so, 
and  that  deliverance  is  possible,  both  from  the  furnace  and  from  the  power 
of  the  king  himself.  If  we  suppose,  on  the  other  hand,  the  announce 
ment  to  be  positive,  i.  e.  in  the  shape  of  an  absolute  prediction,  and  regard 
the  three  Hebrews  as  divinely  assured  of  escape  at  this  time,  much  is 
taken  from  their  constancy  and  courage.  Assurance  absolute  of  safety 
dispenses  with  courage  in  its  higher  sense.  They  might  have  hoped  for 
such  an  issue  ;  they  probably  did  ;  but  it  seems  not  to  be  improbable,  that 
they  were  not  positively  assured  of  it.  Hence  the  alternative  in  the  next 
verse,  apparently  founded  on  the  possibility,  or  perhaps  probability,  that 
they  might  not  escape.  This  places  their  courage  and  constancy  in  a 
true  light.  In  the  face  of  danger  really  apprehended,  they  remain  quiet 
and  firm.  On  the  grounds  alleged,  we  may  render  -^t1^  ,  at  the  close 
of  the  verse  by  the  Subj.,  as  the  form  of  the  Imperf.  permits  us  to  do, 
§  44.  3.  c.  I  have  followed  the  accents  in  beginning  the  after  clause  with 
•jltn&rya  ,  and  not  (as  Lengerke  does)  with  :p'i~l]7:!|  .  On  this  ground,  the 
first  nsist^ia  has  no  complement  expressed,  and  it  may  well  be  translated 
as  absolute,  viz.  to  accomplish  deliverance. 

(18)  And  if  not,  be  it  known  to  thee,  0  king,  that  we  shall  not  serve  thy  gods,  nor 
worship  the  golden  image  which  thou  hast  set  up. 


5OJT]  ,  see  on  2:  20.  —  sn^n  ,  Part.  Peil,  §  47.  1.  —  Tf  0^  ,  pi. 
with  suff.  p.  35.  No.  2.  —  W^K  ,  i.  e.  wx  with  1st  pi.  suff.  which  consti 
tutes  its  subject,  joined  with  the  Part,  'pnbs  ,  and  used  for  the  Fut.,  §  47. 
1.  o.  The  b  before  the  noun  here,  and  also  before  nbsb  ,  marks  the  Ace., 
§  56.  2.  Firmly  and  plainly,  without  the  least  equivocation  or  apology, 
the  young  Hebrews  here  express  their  steadfast  determination.  But  the 
uncontrolled  despot  of  a  great  empire,  as  might  be  expected,  could  not 
endure  any  show  even  of  reluctance  to  obey  his  commands,  as  the  sequel 
will  fully  declare. 

(19)  Then  Nebuchadnezzar  was  filled  with  indignation,  and  the  form  of  his  coun- 

8* 


90  CHAP.  III.  19. 

tenance  was  changed  in  respect  to  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego,  and  he  gave 
command  to  heat  the  furnace  seven  times  more  than  it  was  wont  to  be  heated. 

tbx ,  usually  image,  oxia,  as  above,  but  here  plainly  it  designates  the 
appearance  or  form,  look,  of  the  countenance.  —  iftteas  ,  suff.  plur.  of 
C]3K,  fades.  —  ISfr^N,  the  Kethibh  is  o  plur.  Ithpaal  from  N:D  ,  with  la 
and  ft  exchanged,  p.  40.  5.  b,  and  (-)  under  the  first  letter,  §  12.  1.  5, 
i.  e.  the  first  syllable  has  the  Syriac  punctuation,  comp.  §  25.  2.  If  we 
retain  the  pi.  reading,  (with  the  Kethibh,  which  written  plene  would 
be  TSinnJx),  then  the  plur.  verb  agrees  with  the  noun  immediately  before 
it,  (as  often  in  Hebrew,  see  Heb.  Gramm.  §  145.  1);  the  Qeri  here, 
"'SfNSX ,  substitutes  the  verb  sing.,  so  that  it  may  accord  with  dbs  ,  i.  e.  the 
Masorites  have  conformed  the  text  to  what  they  deemed  to  be  grammati 
cal  analogy.  I  prefer  the  Kethibh,  deeming  it  to  be  more  probably  the 
original  reading.  What  is  meant  in  this  clause  clearly  is,  that  the  color 
of  Nebuchadnezzar's  face  and  the  aspect  of  it  were  changed.  Passion 
made  him  pale,  or  else  highly  flushed,  (the  text  does  not  decide  which), 
and  the  expression  of  his  visage  was  ferocious.  —  ^>3> ,  either  (as  in  the 
version  above)  in  respect  to,  or  on  account  of,  viz.  because  of,  what  Sha 
drach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego,  had  said  and  done.  —  "IES"!  ftps,  both 
participles  have  their  complement  in  Ntfcb  etc.  It  was  usual,  and  still  is 
so,  in  the  East,  oftentimes  to  execute  judgment  in  a  capital  case  upon  the 
spot,  and  under  the  king's  eye.  Hence  the  command  to  make  immediate 
preparation  for  the  death  that  had  been  threatened.  —  xtab  ,  contract  form 
of  Xtx?gb  ,  Inf.  Peal  of  Ntx  ,  first  K  omitted  because  it  is  quiescent  in  the 
contracted  form.  —  ftsatiJ  ."ift  ,  lit.  one  seven,  or  seven-fold,  §  59.  5.  a.  I 
have  translated  the  phrase  by  seven  times,  because  our  idiom  requires  us 
to  express  the  idea  in  this  manner.  —  in  b:? ,  beyond  that  ivhich,  or  above 
what.  —  ntn ,  Part.  Peil  of  xtn ,  lit.  (the  whole  phrase)  beyond  what 
had  been  seen  in  respect  to  the  heating  of  it.  The  idea  is  expressed  in  the 
version  above,  in  accordance  with  the  idiom  that  we  usually  employ.  — 
PP'rab ,  suff.  Inf.  in  Peal,  of  xtx  ,  contracted  as  above.  When  the  suff.  is 
appended,  the  final  X  of  the  root  becomes  movable,  and  is  converted  in 
to  (•»),  in  order  to  make  the  pronunciation  more  facile.  —  The  command, 
given  in  such  a  style,  is  altogether  in  accordance  with  the  passionate 
character  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Refined  cruelty  in  putting  the  condemned 
to  death,  is  an  ordinary  expression  of  savage  vengeance.  In  reality, 
however,  as  to  the  present  case,  if  the  augmented  fire  could  have  exer 
cised  its  usual  power,  the  sufferings  of  the  victims  would  have  merely 
been  shortened  by  the  king's  command.  Boiling  rage,  however,  does  not 
stop  to  calculate.  As  to  seven,  it  has  the  usual  force  of  intensity  here,  for 
plainly  the  mere  literal  meaning  is  not  to  be  urged. 


CHAP.  III.  20—22.  91 

(20)  And  he  commanded  the  most  powerful  men  of  his  army  to  bind  Shadrach  , 
Meshach,  and  Abednego,  in  order  to  cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  burning  fire. 


^n  vji'sa  ,  lit.  mighty  of  strength,  i.  e.  the  strongest,  §  58.  2.  — 
V>n  in  a  derived  and  secondary  sense,  force,  army,  with  a  suff.  and  a  pref. 
prep.  The  soldiers  of  his  body-guard,  who  doubtless  were  men  of  the 
character  here  described,  are  those  to  whom  this  command  is  directed.  — 
tinssb  ,  Inf.  of  Aph.,  with  la  pref.  —  fcttn^,  Inf.  Peal  of  K£*i  ,  ^  denot 
ing  the  design  or  object  in  view,  as  vov  before  the  Inf.  in  Greek  often 
does. 

(21)  Then  those  men  were  bound  in  their  wide  nether  garments,  their  tunics,  and 
their  mantles,  and  their  clothing,  and  were  cast  into  the  midst  of  the  furnace  of  burn 
ing  fire. 


Part.  Peil  used  as  a  verb  pass.,  §  13.  2.  —  'p'l'nbsnoa  ,  designates 
wide  and  long  pantaloons,  such  as  are  still  worn  in  the  East,  covering  the 
lower  limbs  and  the  hips  ;  see  Lex.  —  •psruzhipB  ,  the  vowels  belong  to 
the  Qeri,  which  takes  'ras  as  the  ground  form,  and  makes  the  pi.  "pmttJaB  , 
(like  the  Syriac).  The  Kethibh,  however,  is  well  enough,  and  should  be 
read  'prrdiES  ,  pi.  with  suff.  This  means,  the  under  garment  of  the  upper 
part  of  the  person,  =  a  tunic,  or  shirt  of  full  dimensions,  but  differing  in 
form  from  ours,  and  made  of  various  material,  according  to  the  condition 
of  the  wearer.  —  As  to  'jifinbsi-is  ,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  It  means  the 
outer  garment,  the  broad  mantle,  girded  around  the  body  ;  see  Lex. 
The  last  noun,  •j'feneJiai  ,  comprehends  all  the  articles  of  clothing  not 
before  mentioned,  and  is  in  apposition  with  the  preceding  nouns.  — 
1W  ,  Part.  Peil  of  aw-]  ,  §  13.  2.  The  object  of  mentioning  these  articles 
of  clothing,  is  to  indicate  the  haste  with  which  the  execution  was 
urged  on,  not  leaving  time  for  the  usual  disrobing  of  the  condemned. 

(22)  On  this  account,  because  the  command  of  the  king  was  urgent  and  tbe  furnace 
was  exceedingly  bot,  those  men  who  led  up  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego  — 
them  did  the  flame  of  the  fire  destroy. 


,  fern.  Part.  Aph.,  which  conjugation  here  means  ursit,  propera- 
vit.  Urgent  is  our  appropriate  word  —  Mtx  ,  Part.  Peil,  pointed  under 
the  X  in  the  Syriac  manner  (with  -),  and  employed  for  rttx.  —  1p&!n  , 
Aph.  of  pG3  ,  lit.  caused  to  ascend,  which  I  have  rendered  led  up.  It  de 
signates  here  the  leading  of  the  men  up  to  the  opening  in  the  top  of  the  fur 
nace,  whence  the  flame  and  smoke  issued.  Into  this  they  were  to  be  pre 
cipitated.  It  seems  that  there  could  have  been  but  little  room,  on  the  top 
of  the  furnace,  for  the  executioners  to  stand  outside  of  the  prisoners  ; 
otherwise  they  could  easily  have  kept  back  and  avoided  the  flames.  Thus 
the  unwonted  augmentation  and  fury  of  the  fire  occasioned  the  death  of  all 


92  CHAP.  III.  23,  24. 

who  came  near.  This  circumstance  Lengerke,  as  usual,  attributes  to  the 
romancing  of  the  author  of  the  book  ;  for,  as  he  regards  the  matter,  by 
mentioning  this,  the  writer  designs  to  augment  the  wonder  of  the  reader 
when  he  finds  the  Hebrews  to  be  unharmed.  On  a  like  ground  of  course 
we  must,  if  consistent,  suppose  that  John  relates  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
from  the  dead  ;  and  so  of  all  the  other  miraculous  phenomena  related  in 
the  N.  Test  or  the  Old.  As  I  cannot  harmonize  with  such  views,  so  I 
can  find,  at  least  thus  far  in  the  narration  before  us,  no  special  evidence 
of  any  such  preconcerted  design,  as  is  usually  apparent  in  romance  writ 
ing.  I  have  imitated  the  original  in  the  arrangement  of  the  last  part  of 
the  verse,  viz.  those  men  .  .  .  them,  etc.  This  is  often  the  manner  of  ex 
pression  in  Chaldee  and  Hebrew,  where  the  design  is  to  make  any  object 
peculiarly  prominent.  Comp.  §  40.  3.  c,  where  the  like  usage  is  noted. 

(23)  And  those  three  men,  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego,  fell  bound  into  the 
midst  of  the  furnace  of  burning  fire. 


•jittr^n  ,  lit.  the  threeness  of  them,  §  59.  1.  b.  —  "pnBSE  ,  bound,  Part.  pass. 
of  Pael.  Probably  both  the  hands  and  feet  were  bound  ;  for  this  was 
usual,  in  order  to  prevent  either  resistance  or  escape.  This  may  account 
for  it,  that  the  executioners  were  obliged  to  approach  so  near  the  furnace, 
(in  order  to  throw  the  prisoners  into  it),  that  they  themselves  became  the 
victims  of  its  fierceness.  That  the  prisoners  escaped  death,  was  of  course 
by  miraculous  interposition  ;  for  the  matter  cannot  by  any  ingenuity  be 
explained  away.  We  have  seen  above  what  Lengerke  and  Hitzig 
think  of  the  whole  narrative,  but  specially  of  that  part  of  it  which  declares 
that  the  fire  had  no  power  over  the  bodies  of  the  young  Hebrews.  To 
all  who  reject  entirely  the  idea  of  any  miraculous  or  supernatural  in 
terposition,  such  views  will  of  course  appear  plausible.  For  myself,  I 
cannot  see  any  satisfactory  reason,  even  in  philosophy,  for  embracing 
such  views  ;  and  as  to  the  Scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
it  is  beyond  any  fair  question  that  they  abound  in  such  narrations.  With 
that  enlightened  disciple  of  the  primitive  age  of  Christianity,  whether  he 
be  Paul  or  Apollos,  who  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  I  believe,  that 
"the  violence  of  the  fire  was  quenched,"  Heb.  11:  34.  Nothing  there 
fore  urges  me  to  make  any  effort,  in  order  to  avoid  the  plain  and  simple 
meaning  of  the  narration  before  us. 

(24)  Then  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  was  astonished,  and  rose  up  in  haste  ;  he  an 
swered  and  said  to  his  State-councillors  :  Did  we  not  cast  three  men  bound  into  the 
midst  of  the  fire  ?  They  answered  and  said  :  Certainly,  0  king  ! 


,  Inf.  Ithpeal,  with  pref.  a,  used  as  a  noun  ;  lit.  (as  a  verb) 
in  hastening  himself.  —  irpwnb  ,  pi.  with  suff.     That  Wtt  comes  from 


CHAP.  III.  25.  93 

•Q'n  ,  to  lead,  guide,  etc.,  (a  meaning  which  the  Heb.  also  has  in  Kal), 
can  scarcely  be  doubted,  because  the  etymology  gives  a  meaning  so  ap 
propriate  here.  The  persons  addressed,  on  this  occasion,  were  evidently 
those  who  attended  the  person  of  the  king,  i.  e.  the  royal  council.  Gese- 
nius  thinks  the  word  to  be  compounded  of  the  Chaldee  T^^  and  the  Heb. 
article  H  .  But  there  is  no  other  known  case  of  the  like  nature  in  Chal 
dee.  Is  it  not  more  probable,  that  the  n  here  is  a  formative  prefix  (==  x), 
and  thus  distinguishes  *f~itt  here  from  the  usual  meaning  attached  to  it 
elsewhere  without  such  formative  ?  The  Dagh.  f.  does  not  necessarily 
stand  in  the  way  ;  for  we  have  "ja  ,  *$X  ,  garden,  as  Maurer  remarks  ; 
although,  since  the  root  here  is  of  the  form  53,  the  two  cases  are  not 
quite  parallel  ;  comp.  the  Dagh.  compensative  in  the  first  radical,  in  the 
Fut.  of  verbs  rr.  Kindred  words  in  Chaldee  seem  to  be  ^a^p  orator, 
N'^a'TO  ,  dux.  Yon  Bohlen's  derivation  from  the  Persian  (Symb.  p.  26), 
seems  too  remote.  I  prefer  to  take  the  tt  here,  as  usual  in  this  book, 
to  be  a  Hebraizing  equivalent  for  X;  and  that  N  prosthetic  and  formative 
is  sometimes  admitted  by  the  Chaldee,  see  fully  confirmed  in  Gramm. 
p.  30.  e  ;  although  the  present  case  is  not  exactly  like  to  those  there  pro 
duced.  A  word  was  probably  needed  of  a  form  sui  generis,  to  distinguish 
the  king's  privy  council  from  all  others  whom  he  might  consult  ;  and  this 
seems  to  be  such  a  word.  —  N^l  >  the  pi.  Peal,  from  st*p.  .  —  "pas?  ,  plur. 
Part.  Peal  ;  for  this  form  of  plurals  (seemingly  Dual)  in  verbs  &>  ,  see 
p.  91,  Par.  VII.  a.  In  such  forms  the  (^)  of  the  plur.  ending  is  omit 
ted  in  writing,  because  of  the  (i)  in  the  end  of  the  root  ;  so  one  must  read 
yln,  not  yin  ;  comp.  d^ia  =  d^ia  in  Hebrew.  —  x^"1^  ,  an  established  or 
settled  thing  [is  it],  the  fern.  adj.  being  employed  as  indicating  neuter 
gender  or  abstract  quality.  We  might  translate  :  certainty. 

(25)  He  answered  and  said  :  Lo  !  I  see  four  men  unbound,  walking  in  the  midst 
of  the  fire,  and  there  is  no  harm  to  them  ;  and  as  to  the  appearance  of  the  fourth  — 
he  is  like  to  a  son  of  the  gods. 


'p'rr  ,  pi.  Part.  pass.  Peal,  of  vryti  ;  for  pi.  form  see  v.  24  on  "pay  .  — 
I'-obl-ra  ,  Part.  Aph.  —  iai  wni  ,  lit.  and  the  appearance  of  him,  of  the  fourth, 
•n  (rev)  for  lan  ,  root  fiso  .  The  suff.  here  specificates,  and  is  pleonastic 
in  our  idiom,  §  40.  3.  a.  —  In  ap$w  ,  (-a-ya),  the  vowels  belong  to  the 
Qeri  Siarq'i  ;  the  form  of  the  Kethibh  is  a  Hebraizing  one,  the  fern. 
form  being  of  the  masc.  gender,  §  36.  2.  —  'pnbx—  qb  ,  to  a  son  of  the  gods, 
in  the  mouth  of  Nebuchadnezzar  must  mean,  either  a  descendant  of  the 
gods,  or  a  being  of  a  superior  i.  e.  godlike  nature.  In  other  words, 
Nebuchadnezzar  recognizes  in  the  fourth  the  appearance  of  a  supernatu 
ral  being.  Simply  this,  and  nothing  more,  as  I  apprehend,  can  be  drawn 
from  the  expression  ;  which,  in  the  mouth  of  an  idolatrous  polytheist, 


94  CH^P.  III.  26,  27. 

must  convey  merely  his  views  of  beings  endowed  with  a  superior  nature. 
How  far  the  expression  before  us  will  lead  us  to  decide  on  the  acquaint 
ance  of  the  writer  with  the  sacred  mythology  of  the  Babylonians,  it  might 
be  difficult  to  determine.  Thus  much  is  clear,  viz.,  that  all  middle  and 
hither  Asia  believed  in  gods  superior  and  inferior  ;  that  a  writer,  living 
anywhere  in  that  region,  could  hardly  fail  to  be  acquainted  with  this  fact  ; 
and  that  the  expression  before  us  might  easily  arise  from  such  knowledge. 
At  all  events  it  cannot  well  be  denied,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  here  speaks 
altogether  in  accordance  with  what  we  know  of  the  Babylonish  my 
thology. 

(26)  Then  Nebuchadnezzar  drew  near  to  the  door  of  the  furnace  of  burning  fire; 
he  answered  and  said  :    Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego,  servants  of  God  most 
high,  go  forth  and  come  out!     Then  Shadrach,  Meshach,  arid  Abednego  went  forth 
from  the  midst  of  the  fire. 

S'inip  ,  the  door  must  have  been,  of  course,  a  side-aperture,  by  which 
the  furnace  was  fed,  and  into  which  the  king  could  look  without  danger. 
—  "'rti'ns?  ,  pi.  suff.,  for  the  use  of  which  see  §  40.  3.  a.  —  x^S  ,  where 
the  Masorites,  jealous  for  the  purer  Chaldee  of  the  book,  have  given  us 
a  Qeri  rtx|s  .  But  the  other  form  is  too  common  here  to  suppose  it  not 
to  have  been  original.  —  *ip*iB,  Imper.  of  pB3.  —  inx  Imper.  of  KPN  ;. 
This  word  is  not  repeated  in  the  sequel,  but  "ppBD  only  is  employed.  It 
was  very  natural  for  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  his  wonder  and  excitement,  to 
employ  two  imperatives  nearly  synonymous  ;  for  this  gives  intensity  to 
his  command  =  come  out  forthwith  !  In  giving  the  account  of  their  going 
out,  one  verb  of  course  suffices. 

(27)  Then  were  assembled  the  satraps,  the  deputy-governors,  the  overseers,  and 
the  privy-councillors  of  the  king;  they  looked  at  those  men  on  whose  bodies  the  fire 
had  no  power,  and  not  a  hair  of  their  heads  was  singed,  and  their  wide  nether  gar 
ments  were  not  changed,  nor  had  the  scent  of  fire  come  upon  them. 


!  ,  *i  then,  as  often  in  Hebrew.  The  Part,  is  in  Ithpael,  but  the 
Dagh.  f.  in  3  is  omitted,  as  often  when  the  Sheva  would  be  movable.  — 
For  the  names  of  officers  here,  see  vs.  2,  24,  above.  —  "j^n  asyndic, 
which,  as  we  everywhere  see,  is  a  common  characteristic  of  this  book.  — 
•pfrairaa  ,  sing,  with  suff.  from  disa  ,  (-)  under  the  a  in  the  suff.  form, 
where  we  might  expect  (-),  indicating  that  the  word  belongs  to  the  E 
class  of  Segholates.  —  Tpnrfi,  Ithpael,  rt  because  the  Dagh.  is  excluded 
from  the  i  .  iaia  ,  Peal  3  plur.  of  KSIB  .  —  rns  ,  Peal  3  fern,  of  x^s  . 
Mark  the  gradation  here  :  the  body  is  not  burned  ;  the  hair  is  not  singed  ; 
the  lower  garments  of  light  stuff  are  not  changed  in  their  appearance; 
and  to  crown  all,  not  even  the  scent  of  fire  has  come  upon  them.  Even 


CHAP.  III.  28,  29.  95 

Lengerke,  while  he  regards  the  whole  account  as  romance,  is  constrained 
to  acknowledge,  that  "  there  is  a  climactic  gradation  in  the  language  which 
is  almost  poetic  in  its  expressions,"  (p.  141). 

(28)  Nebuchadnezzar  answered  and  said:  Blessed  be  the  God  of  Shadrach.  Me- 
shach,  and  Abednego,  who  hath  sent  his  angel  and  delivered  his  servants,  who  trusted 
in  him,  and  transgressed  the  commandment  of  the  king,  and  gave  up  their  bodies, 
that  they  might  not  serve  nor  worship  any  god  except  their  God. 


,  with  suff.  intensive  and  anticipative,  §  40.  3.  a.  —  •  Pia&j&Ta  ,  tt- 
suff.  —  s^tis),  see  on  v.  15.  —  sistrnn.fi  ,  3  plur.  Ithpeal,  with  (T)  under 
the  second  radical  n  ,  p.  49.  2.  —  "'fi'&S  >  i»  e-  ^?  with  a  plur.  suff.,  as  is 
usual,  §  38.  2.  b.  —  TSia,  3  pi.  Pael,  lit.  changed,  but  this,  when  predi 
cated  of  a  subject  and  not  of  the  lawgiver  or  sovereign,  must  of  course 
mean  transgress.  So  in  Ezra  6:  11.  —  •pjmcis^  ,  as  it  ought  to  be  pointed, 
in  accordance  with  the  Kethibh  and  all  the  ancient  Versions,  all  of  them 
giving  the  plural  here.  As  usual,  in  this  book,  the  Kethibh  is  the  better 
reading.  The  pointing  in  the  printed  copy  belongs  to  the  Sing,  "lirraiaj)  , 
which  here  is  inappropriate.  —  Giving  up  their  bodies  is  breviloquence  ; 
giving  themselves  up  to  expected  destruction  is  what  the  king  means  to  inti 
mate.  Nebuchadnezzar,  astounded  by  the  miraculous  preservation  of  the 
condemned,  and  awed  by  the  appearance  of  "  a  son  of  the  gods,"  yields 
to  the  impulse  of  the  moment,  and  testifies  his  homage  to  the  God  of  Is 
rael.  He  was  doubtless  like  the  Herod,  who  "  heard  John  the  Baptist 
gladly  ;"  and  like  the  Jews,  who  glorified  God  when  Christ  performed 
surprising  miracles,  and  sung  hosannas  when  he  was  riding  meekly  in 
triumph,  but  immediately  afterwards,  with  a  change  of  circumstances, 
changed  their  minds,  and  joined  the  procession  to  the  crucifixion.  Con 
victions  wrought  by  the  display  of  miraculous  power,  seem  better  adapted 
to  arrest  the  attention  and  check  the  daring  course  of  the  transgressor,  than 
to  work  a  permanent  change  in  his  mind.  So  Paul  seems  to  have  viewed 
the  subject,  1  Cor.  14:  22  seq.  On  a  ground  like  to  this,  perhaps,  we  may 
account  for  it,  that  since  the  primitive  age  miracles  have  ceased  to  be  a 
constituent  part  of  the  so-named  means  of  grace. 

(29)  By  me  then  is  a  decree  established,  that  every  people,  nation,  and  tongue, 
who  shall  utter  any  blasphemy  against  the  God  of  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed 
nego,  shall  be  cut  in  pieces,  and  his  house  be  made  a  dunghill  ;  because  there  is  no 
other  god  who  can  deliver  in  such  a  manner. 

D^ia  ,  Tart.  Peil  of  D«ib  .  —  rfcia  is  only  an  orthographic  variation  of  the 
regular  sibio  ;  which  the  Qeri,  as  usual,  supplies.  It  means  error,  and  (ap 
plied  to  language)  falsehood.  Falsehood  uttered  against  God  is  blas 
phemy  ;  and  I  have  translated  accordingly.  —  "Crn.1?  ,  Fut.  Ithpeal  ; 


96  CHAP.  III.  30. 

for  the  whole  phrase,  see  Cornm.  on  2:  5.  —  Ptr^a ,  lit.  his  house,  indi 
vidualizes,  and  is  equivalent  to  the  house  of  each,  viz.  of  each  blasphemer. 
—  ^ ,  Fut.  of  assimilation,  from  Vs? ,  §  20.  4.  —  ii^shb ,  Aph.  Inf.  of 
bsp ,  Par.  p.  60. 

(30)  Then  the  king  promoted  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego,  in  the  province 
of  Babylon. 

nbsn  lit.  signifies  made  prosperous  or  happy.  But  as  it  here  stands 
connected  with  in  or  over  the  province  ofJBabylon,  it  must  of  course  mean, 
that  the  king  placed  them  in  office  again  over  this  province,  comp.  2: 49  ; 
possibly,  or  rather  (from  the  nature  of  the  verb)  probably,  it  means  here, 
that  they  were  advanced  to  a  higher  grade  of  office  than  before. 

After  perusing  the  account  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  demeanor,  which  is 
contained  in  ch.  ii,  the  reader  cannot  be  much  surprised  at  his  conduct, 
which  is  related  in  ch.  iii.  He  was  a  despot,  and  a  man  of  violent  passions 
and  strong  impulses.  Like  most  men  of  this  temperament,  he  went  from 
one  extreme  to  the  opposite.  Allowing  what  is  here  related  to  have  been 
matter  of  fact,  and  a  thing  which  took  place  under  the  king's  own  eyes, 
we  surely  cannot  be  surprised  that  he  was  overawed  and  brought  to  a 
kind  and  gentle  state  of  mind. 

[Here  ends  the  narration,  and  here  should  end  the  chapter  ;  as  in  all  our  Versions 
it  does.  To  avoid  mistake,  I  would  notify  the  reader,  that  for  Dan.  3:  31—33,  he  must 
look  in  the  English  Bible  for  4:  1 — 3  ;  and  for  all  the  references  to  our  version  through 
ch.  iv,  he  must  go  forward  of  the  reference  as  made  here,  and  pass  over  three  verses 
in  order  to  find  the  corresponding  English  translation.  My  references  are,  for  con 
sistency's  sake,  to  the  Heb.  arrangement  of  chapter  and  verse:  although  the  division 
of  chapters  in  this  case  is  palpably  wrong.] 


CHAP.  III.  31—33.  —  IV.  34. 

[This  purports  to  be  a  proclamation  of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  his  subjects, 
after  his  recovery  from  a  derangement  of  mind  which  he  had  suffered,  and 
his  restoration  to  his  former  dignity.  This  proclamation,  therefore,  must 
have  been  made  near  the  close  of  his  life  and  reign ;  and  it  closes  the  ac 
count  of  this  king,  which  is  contained  in  the  book  of  Daniel.  But  the  reader 
must  not  for  a  moment  suppose,  that  because  this  book  has  related  some  oc 
currences  at  the  beginning,  near  the  middle,  and  at  the  close,  of  his  reign, 
it  has  therefore  undertaken  to  present  the  whole  history  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
reign.  It  touches  those  points,  and  those  only,  with  which  some  extraordi 
nary  development  that  has  a  bearing  upon  religion  is  connected.  It  is  not 
Nebuchadnezzar  as  head  of  a  great  empire,  nor  yet  simply  as  the  conqueror 
of  Judea,  who  is  presented,  but  Nebuchadnezzar  as  rebuked,  punished,  dis 
ciplined,  and  instructed,  by  an  all-wise  and  overruling  Providence. 

The  fact  that  such  a  proclamation  as  is  before  us  was  made,  is  a  singular 
testimony  to  the  susceptible  and  variable  temper  of  mind  possessed  by  Nebu- 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  IV.  97 

cliadnezzar.  As  this  last  document  reaches  a  period  so  near  to  the  close  of 
his  life,  and  inasmuch  as  in  his  own  person  he  had  been  made  to  feel  the  ter 
rible  effects  of  haughtiness  and  ambition,  may  we  not  hope,  that  what  he 
expresses  in  4:  34  (37)  continued  to  be  his  prevailing  sentiment  until  his 
death  ?  Many  recent  critics  are  fond  of  comparing  him  with  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  and  zealously  maintain,  that  the  author  of  the  'romance  be 
fore  us  [book  of  Daniel],  intended  throughout  to  present  in  Nebuchadnezzar 
a  likeness  of  the  Syrian  tyrant.'  On  this  assumption,  indeed,  much  of  their 
criticism  on  the  book  is  founded.  But  if  all  this  be  so,  what  an  egregious  fail 
ure  in  making  out  a  characteristic  similitude  !  Nebuchadnezzar  was  a  man 
of  impulses,  of  strong  passions,  and  of  a  haughty  spirit.  But  he  exhibited 
when  the  storm  of  passion  had  blown  over,  many  generous  impulses  ;  as  we 
see  in  his  treatment  of  Daniel  and  his  companions.  Antiochus  was  indeed 
possessed  of  a  character  nearly  allied  to  the  bad  part  of  Nebuchadnezzar's, 
although  on  a  much  lower  and  more  bestial  scale  ;  to  this  he  superadded  his 
own  vulgar  and  swinish  habits  ;  and  all  this  apparently  with  scarce  a  single 
virtue  to  redeem  him  from  the  lowest  infamy.  He  was  the  unrelenting  and 
insatiable  persecutor  of  the  Jews  and  of  Judaism  ;  while,  excepting  the  con 
quest  of  Judea,  to  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  been  provoked  by  the  treach 
ery  of  Jehoiakim  and  Zedekiah,  and  excepting  the  usual  military  executions 
always  attendant  upon  the  subjugation  of  revolters  (Jer.  39:  5 — 7),  there  is 
no  evidence  of  his  having  treated  the  Hebrew  exiles  with  any  more  than 
the  ordinary  severity  of  bondage,  in  all  cases  of  the  like  nature.  The  pro 
motion  of  Daniel  and  his  companions  to  important  offices  in  the  satrapy  of 
the  metropolis,  shows  that  the  king  had  no  particular  bitterness  of  feeling 
toward  the  Jewish  nation  as  such.  The  declarations  which  he  made,  (in 
cluding  the  proclamation  before  us),  respecting  the  God  of  the  Hebrews, 
shows  that  his  mind  was  capable  of  estimating  the  weight  of  evidence,  and 
that  his  conscience  was  in  that  state  of  susceptibility,  that  he  could  be  deeply 
affected  by  the  majesty  of  holiness  and  truth.  In  all  these  respects,  how 
different  was  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  that  ntas  (Dan.  11:  21),  i.  e.  despicable 
wretch,  who  crept  into  power  by  flattery  and  by  falsehood,  and  who,  when 
living,  was  commonly  surnamed  ini^dv^q  (mad-man]  by  his  subjects,  instead 
of  £7ii(p<xvrjg  (magnificent,  illustrious),  a  title  by  which  he  named  himself?, 
If  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel  did  indeed  mean  to  hit  off  Ephiphanes 
in  the  sketch  that  he  has  given  us  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  he  was  one  of  the 
most  unskilful  of  all  the  likeness-painters,  with  whom  it  has  been  my  lot  to 
form  an  acquaintance.  But  I  shall  have  occasion  elsewhere  to  touch  upon 
this  subject,  and  in  order  to  avoid  repetition,  I  shall  close  here  this  train  of 
thought,  and  pass  to  the  contents  of  the  Proclamation. 

The  salutatory  part  of  this  communication  is  addressed  to  the  whole  empire,  which, 
in  the  usual  style  of  the  oriental  monarchs,  is  described  as  embracing  the  whole  earth, 
3:  31.  (4:  1 ).  The  king  states,  that  the  wonderful  dealings  of  God  with  him,  and  the 
greatness  of  his  power  and  dominion  thereby  manifested,  have  led  him  to  make  the 
declaration  that  follows,  to  his  subjects,  vs.  32. 33.  (4:  2,  3).  Nebuchadnezzar  then  re 
lates,  that  he  had  a  dream  which  terrified  him,  and  that  all  the  Magi  being  summoned 
to  interpret  it,  they  were  unable.  At  last  Daniel  came  in,  whom  he  recogniztd  as  en 
dowed  with  a  superior  knowledge,  and  to  whom  he  appealed  for  an  interpretation ; 
4: 1 — 6  (4:  4 — 9).  He  gives  an  account  of  the  dream  to  Daniel,  vs.  7 — 15.  (10 — 19),. 

9 


98  CHAP.  III.  31—33. 

Daniel,  recovering  from  the  deep  impression  which  his  foreboding  thoughts  made  up 
on  him,  interprets  the  dream,  vs.16 — 24  (vs.  20 — 27).  Having  thus  related  the  dream, 
and  its  interpretation,  the  king  proceeds,  in  the  usual  style  of  historical  narrative,  to 
tell  the  story  of  his  madness.  A  voice,  from  heaven  announced  the  beginning  of  it, 
and  it  forthwith  followed.  After  wandering  for  some  time  in  this  state  among  the 
beasts  of  the  field,  and  taking  his  sustenance  with  them,  he  at  length  recovered  his 
reason,  and  also  his  kingly  authority  and  splendor.  In  testimony  of  his  humility  and 
of  his  gratitude,  he  publishes  this  to  all  his  subjects ;  apparently  with  the  design,  that 
they  also  should  recognize  the  hand  of  the  God  of  Israel  in  all  these  events,  vs.  26 — 34. 
(vs.  29 — 37).  Under  the  guidance  of  an  overruling  Providence,  there  can  scarcely  be 
room  for  doubt  in  a  believing  mind,  that  all  this  was  designed  to  arrest  the  attention, 
of  the  Babylonians  to  the  religion  of  the  Jews,  and  particularly  to  render  them  kind 
and  respectful  toward  the  Hebrew  exiles  now  sojourning  with  them. 


CHAP.  III.  31. 

(31  )  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  to  all  people,  nations,  and  tongues,  who  dwell  in  all 
the  earth  :  May  your  peace  be  multiplied  ! 

T^tf  3  ,  Part.  Peal  of  w  ,  p.  68.  Par.  The  Qeri  gives  the  more  usual 
Chaldee  form,  "^^  $  but  the  difference  is  merely  orthographic.  —  "p^biB  > 
the  suff.  state  of  dbd  =  Heb.  diVr  .  —  xab1^  ,  Fut.  Peal,  here  used  opta- 
tively,  §  44.  3.  a. 

(32)  The  signs  and  wonders  which  God  most  high  has  wrought  in  me,  it  seemed 
good  in  my  view  to  declare. 

N*PK  ,  pi.  emph.  of  PX  =  Heb.  rrix  .  —  ^STari  ,  pi.  emph.  of  weft  . 
In  Hebrew,  we  have  d^rB.iE*!  P.i'nis  ;  in  the  N.  Test,  crjusia  %ai  itQaia  ; 
both  in  the  same  way.  Signs  designates  not  the  ordinary  tokens  or  sym 
bols  of  common  events,  but  always,  when  employed  as  here,  something 
extraordinary  or  of  a  miraculous  nature.  Wonders  is  another  name  for 
the  same  events,  but  this  name  is  intended  to  designate  that  effect  on  the 
mind  which  signs  produce.  Both  words  together  mean  :  '  miraculous 
events  which  call  forth  wonder.'  —  ifis  =  apud  me.  The  speaker  refers 
to  the  changes  that  had  taken  place  in  regard  to  his  own  person.  —  x^S  , 
see  on  v.  26  above.  —  "'^I?.  >  prep,  with  plur.  form  and  suff.,  =  evuniov 
TiQOGWTiov  [AOV,  i.  e.  in  my  view.  —  Fnjnrf?  ,  Inf.  Aph.  of  aon  ,  !"P-  for 
SO-  ,  as  usual  in  this  book.  That  the  passionate  and  afterward  insane 
king  had  now  come  to  sober  reflection,  seems  plain  from  the  tenor  of  his 
thoughts  and  views. 

(33)  His  signs  —  how  great  !     His  wonders  —  how  mighty  !     His  kingdom  is  an 
everlasting  kingdom,  and  his  dominion  is  unto  generation  and  generation. 


,  adj.  of  reduplicate  intensive  form  =  very  great.  —  In  Til  "•tt  d2  , 
the  ds  here  marks  the  idea,  of  with  in  respect  to  time,  and  so  it  is  equiva- 


CHAP.  IV.  1—3.  99 

lent  to  our  word  during.  See  the  like  usage,  in  Dan.  7:  2.  Ps.  72:  5. 
Neh.  5:  18.  Ezra  1:11.  So  in  the  Latin  :  "  Cumque  sole  et  luna,  sem 
per  Aratus  erit,"  Ovid,  Ars  Am.  I.  15. 16.  In  ascribing  an  eternal  king 
dom  to  God,  Nebuchadnezzar  evidently  means  to  contrast  it  with  the 
mutable  and  perishing  nature  of  a  dominion  like  his  own. 


CHAP.  IV. 

(1)1  Nebuchadnezzar  was  at  ease  in  my  own  house,  and  flourishing  in  my  palace. 

fM ,  participle  Peil,  Par.  p.  72,  or  participial  adj.  from  fibd ,  desig 
nating  the  idea  of  freedom  from  all  that  could  disturb  or  annoy.  —  S"Wj, 
1st  pers.  sing.  Peal,  from  &on .  —  isrn ,  applied  to  trees,  designates  their 
fulness  of  sap  and  vigor  of  growth  ;  tropically  applied  to  persons,  it  means 
prosperous,  flourishing,  fortunate  (as  we  say).  It  is  a  Pilel  form  of  "js^, 
used  here  as  an  adjective  ;  comp.  §  28.  C.  11.  This  statement  of  his  con 
dition  is  designed  to  be  contrasted  with  that  of  his  subsequent  afflictions  ; 
thus  rendering  his  chastisement  more  conspicuous. 

(2)1  Siiw  a  dream,  and  it  terrified  me  ;  and  thoughts  upon  my  couch  and  visions 
of  my  head  agitated  me. 

I  saw  a  dream,  in  2: 1  dreamed  dreams.  The  difference  is  in  the  man 
ner  of  representation,  not  in  point  of  fact.  To  see,  in  dreams  or  prophetic 
ecstasy,  means  a  mental,  not  an  ocular,  seeing.  I  saw  a  dream  =  a  dream 
was  presented  to  my  mind,  i.  e.  to  the  intellectual  or  spiritual  eye.  — 
^brrpi ,  for  -2-  suff.,  see  p.  58.  Rem.  1.  —  Vnjryi*  of  the  Pilpel  form, 
from  Tnn,  §  28.  b.  11.  —  Thoughts  upon  my  couch  designates  the  reflec 
tions  of  his  mind  upon  the  dream  after  he  had  awaked.  These,  together 
with  the  dream  itself  (visions  of  my  head)  troubled  him.  In  2:  28.  7: 1, 
12  JO  ^tn ,  as  here,  only  designates  the  thoughts  that  arise  in  a  dream. 
—  ^v}3n. ,  Pael  Fut.  with  suff.,  p.  58.  Rem.  1.  It  is  a  stronger  word  than 
brn ,  which  is  confined  to  terror  or  fear  ;  while  brm  expresses  the  agi 
tation  of  the  whole  man. 

(3)  And  by  me  a  decree  was  made,  to  bring  before  me  all  the  wise  men  of  Baby 
lon,  that  they  might  make  known  to  me  the  interpretation  of  the  dream. 

c^b ,  Part.  Peil  of  nito .  —  M^Sirib  >  Aph.  Inf.  of  bbs> ,  with  3  epenthetic 
instead  of  Dagh.  f. ;  p.  30-2  ;  see  also  in  Lex.  —  bbb ,  b  before  the  Ace.,  as 
oftentimes,  everywhere.  —  ^ ,  that,  in  order  that ;  Lex.  B.  2.  —  •oss'i'iJ-n , 
Aph.  Fut.  of  yr\  ;  with  n  pref.  retained,  p.  49.  5,  and  suff.  ^32- ,  p.  58 
Rem.  1. 


100  CHAP.  III.  4—6. 

(4)  Then  came  in  the  sacred  scribes,  the  enchanters,  the  Chaldeans,  and  the  astro 
logers,  'and  I  told  the  dream  before  them  ;  but  the  interpretation  thereof  they  did  not 
make  known  to  me. 

•pb!D2  ,  Part.  pi.  the  points  belong  to  the  Qeri  "piss  .  Better  to  adopt 
the  Kethibh,  omitting  Dagh.  f.,  and  read  "pi?!?:?  ,  which  is  the  usual  form 
in  this  book.  The  present  confusion  in  the  word  has  arisen  from  mixing 
two  modes  of  orthography  together.  —  The  Chaldeans  ;  see  on  2:  4  ;  and 
for  other  accompanying  words,  on  2:  2.  —  "rax  ,  Part,  for  verb,  §  47.  1.  b, 
here  in  the  sense  of  told,  related.  —  "pr^ims  ,  Part.  Aph.  of  yv\  ,  with  n  re 
tained. 

(5)  And  at-  Lust  came  Daniel  before  me,  whose  name  is  Belteshazzar,  according  to 
the  name  of  my  god,  and  in  whom  is  the  spirit  of  the  holy  gods  ;  and  I  told  the 
dream  before  him. 


'T'lnx  Gesenius  (Lex.)  regards  as  a  mere  adj.  form,  in  the  sing.  ;  but 
others  consider  it  as  an  abridged  plur.  used  abstractly,  and  with  an  adver- 
bial  tense.  Adjectives  of  such  a  form  are  rare  ;  while  the  contracted  plur. 
"j—  (so  Qeri  which  -writes  "j^nx  )  for  "p—  is  not  unfrequent  ;  comp. 
•pnx  ,  "(Pix  ;  pSX  ,  "(SX  ,  and  the  like.  —  ^5  ,  Peal  of  bbs  .•  —  According  to 
the  name  of  my  god,  see  on  the  name  in  1:7.  After  giving  the  Hebrew 
name  of  Daniel,  the  king,  in  order  to  specificate,  adds  the  name  by 
which  Daniel  was  ordinarily  known  to  his  subjects.  —  In  whom  is  the  spirit 
of  the  holy  gods,  comp.  the  words  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  2:  47.  3:  29. 
The  speaker  uses  his  accustomed  dialect.  He  was  a  polytheist  ;  and  as 
such,  he  might  consistently  speak  of  holy  gods,  even  where  he  ought  to 
have  said  :  of  God  most  holy.  But  of  such  a  God  the  mass  of  his  subjects 
knew  little  or  nothing  ;  and  so  he  adopts  the  usual  manner  of  parlance 
in  respect  to  the  matter.  —  rnsx  ,  1  pers.  sing.  Peal. 

(G)  Ik'lteshazzar,  chief  overseer  of  the  sacred  scribes,  (for  I  know  that  the  spirit  of 
the  holy  gods  is  in  thce,  and  that  no  secret  is  too  difficult  for  thee),  as  to  the  visions 
of  my  dream  which  I  have  seen,  even  the  interpretation  of  the  same,  tell  me. 

K^SE'in  -^  ,  applied  to  Daniel  here,  shows  the  same  usage,  in  this  book, 
which  is  exhibited  in  2:  4,  where  the  Chaldeans  are  made  the  represen 
tatives  of  all  the  classes  of  the  Magi  ;  i.  e.  a  leading  or  influential  class  is 
named  as  the  representative  of  the  whole.  In  2:  48,  Daniel  is  said  to 
be  ban  i^srrbsb"  "pi^O-li  ,  chief  overseer  over  all  the  wise  men  of  Baby 
lon  ;  where  "ra^sn  is  equivalent,  in  its  generic  meaning,  to  fiWBB'iri  in  our 
text.  —  bw  ,  Part,  of  D:X  ,  which  literally  means  to  force,  impel,  do  violence 
to.  The  meaning  here  is,  that  no  secret  thing  constrains  Daniel  to  re 
linquish  its  explanation,  or  makes  such  explanation  troublesome  to  him 
or  difficult.  —  Tell  me  the  visions  of  my  dream,  etc.,  seems,  at  first  view,  to 


CHAP.  III.  7,  8.  101 

require  of  Daniel  to  do  again  what  he  had  before  done,  viz.  to  tell  both  the 
dream  and  its  interpretation.  But  this  it  can  hardly  mean  in  this  connec 
tion,  for  the  king  himself  proceeds  forthwith  to  relate  the  particulars  of 
the  dream.  We  seem  constrained,  therefore,  to  translate  thus  :  "As  to  the 
visions  of  my  dream  .  .  .  even  the  interpretation  of  the  same,  tell  [me"]. 
The  1  before  ft'TOB  is  explicative  ;  as  e.  g.  in  v.  10,  tzn'ng1]  ,  even  a  holy  one, 
and  often  so  elsewhere.  —  ^^>  *n  pause,  Imper. 


(7)  In  respect  then  to  the  visions  of  my  head  npon  my  couch  :  I  looked,  and  be 
hold  !  there  was  a  tree  in  the  midst  of  the  earth,  and  its  height  was  very  great. 


^trp.  ,  Nom.,  or  rather  Ace.  absolute,  in  which  *i  connects,  but  is  also 
a  transition-particle  that  may  well  be  represented  by  our  word  then. 
Ttte  visions  of  my  head  are  the  same  here  as  the  visions  of  my  dream  in 
the  verse  above,  only  that  the  diction  is  derived  from  another  source,  viz. 
from  the  head  as  the  source  of  thought  and  intelligence.  —  F^n  ^.!^  > 
Part,  joined  with  the  verb  of  existence,  denoting  continued  action,  §  47. 
1  .  a.  —  !ibx  ,  prob.  for  snx  ,  by  exchange  of  b  and  1  ,  which  is  not  un 
common  ;  see  Lex.  —  ",bix  ,  tree,  generic  in  Chaldee,  while  in  Hebrew 
•pbx  means  oaL  In  the  midst  of  the  earth  is  a  phrase  in  accordance  with 
the  language  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  address  to  the  nations  in  all  the  earth, 
3:31.  Not  improbably  the  metropolis  of  Babylon  was  regarded  as  the 
middle  point  of  the  earth  ;  like  the  Oracle  at  Delphos,  and  like  Jerusa 
lem  in  Palestine.  As  the  dream  took  place  in  the  palace  at  Babylon,  the 
tree  most  probably  appeared  to  be  near  there,  x'issi  ,  const,  of  la  with  a  , 
and  it  may  be  written  ia  or  xia  ,  without  any  variation  of  meaning.  — 
jrosn  ,  with  suff.,  its  height.  5Pab  ,  more  intense  than  n*n  ,  and  so  I  have 
translated  it  very  great  ;  for  the  form,  §  28.  b.  10. 

(8)  And  the  tree  became  great  and  waxed  mighty,  so  that  its  height  reached  to  the 
heavens,  and  the  sight  of  it  to  the  end  of  all  the  earth. 


hrn  and  rjpft  are  both  verbs  intrans.  I  have  given  them  as  literal  a 
translation  as  our  idiom  will  allow.  The  reader  must  not  make  adjectives 
of  them;  see  in  §  12.  2.  1.  —  For  ttffi\  (Fut.),  see  on  v.  17.  —  ftnitnk 
aspectus  ejus,  its  aspect,  means  that  its  visibility  reached  to  the  ends  of 
the  earth,  or  (in  other  words)  it  was  visible,  etc.  The  hyperbole,  in  this 
case,  is  altogether  in  keeping  with  the  style  of  the  country.  Oriental 
usage  employs  it,  beyond  all  example  in  the  western  languages.  See 
striking  instances  of  it,  in  Gen.  11:  4.  Deut.  1:  28.  9:  1.  Ps.  57:  10,  11. 
107:  26.  Job  20:  6.  Comp.  Matt.  11:  23.  Even  Herodotus  (II.  138)  has 
Si'vdQea  ovQavonfaea.  It  was  the  custom  at  the  Assyrian,  Babylonian, 
and  Persian  courts,  to  speak  of  the  empire  as  universal  ;  just  as  is  now 
done  in  China,  when  "  the  lord  of  the  world"  is  addressed.  In  the  more 

9* 


102  CHAP.  III.  9,  10. 

chastened  style  of  the  west,  Nebuchadnezzar  would  have  said,  that  the  tree 
was  very  high,  and  could  be  seen  at  a  great  distance. 

(9)  Its  foliage  was  goodly,  and  its  fruit  abundant,  and  there  was  food  for  all  upon 
it ;  under  it  the  beast  of  the  field  sought  shade ;  and  among  its  branches  did  the 
birds  of  the  air  find  lodging  ;  and  by  it  was  all  flesh  supplied  with  food. 

FTSS ,  suff.  state  of  IBS ,  its  foliage.  —  ttapjs; ,  for  nax  from  ax ;  the 
Dagh.  f.  omitted  is  compensated  by  3  epenth.,  p.  30.  e.  2.  —  "pro ,  from 
•pit,  see  form  on  p.  83.  No.  5.  c.  4. —  N^,  emph.  form,  which  of 
course  develops  the  Dagh.  implied  in  the  ^ .  —  ^nlnhP] ,  prep,  mnn  with 
pi.  suff. ;  p.  106.  2.  2.  —  ^?^n,  Aph.  fern.  Fut.,  caused,  i.  e.  procured 
shade;  Fut.  for  the  designation  of  what  is  habitual,  (as  in  Hebrew). 
Winer  has  omitted  to  notice  this,  in  his  Grammar.  —  rvpn ,  const,  form. 
-  irpBas ,  pi.  of  ?]53?  with  suff.  —  -p  w ,  the  vowels  belong  to  the  Qe- 
ri  I'Ti-i,  3  pi.  fern,  of  Peal.  There  is  no  need  of  the  designed  cor 
rection,  for  I'iBs  is  of  the  common  gender.  Read  therefore  "pi'T1.. — 
•HEX  is  derived  by  Ges.  (in  Lex.)  from  ^sx ,  like  the  forms  in  §  28.  b.  7. 
Lengerke  prefers  the  ground-form  "iss  or  ^IEIZ  ,  and  so  makes  Dagh.  to  be 
merely  euphonic  in  fhe  5  .  I  prefer  the  former  etymology.  —  "ptrn  ,  It- 
taphal  (p.  69)  of  "pt ,  were  provided  with  food.  For  the  use  of  three  Fu 
tures  here,  see  on  v.  18.  —  fcOtoa,  flesh  is  predicated  collectively  of  ani 
mals  (as  here),  as  well  as  of  men.  In  this  case,  the  animals  symbo 
lize  men,  and  so  the  verb  is  put  in  the  masc.  plural.  The  oriental  dress, 
in  respect  to  hyperbole,  is  quite  manifest  here.  But  the  description  is 
poetically  and  tastefully  made  out. 

(10)1  beheld,  in  the  visions  of  my  head  upon  my  couch,  and  lo  !  a  Watcher,  even 
a  holy  one,  came  down  from  heaven. 

The  repetition,  in  the  first  clause,  of  what  had  been  already  said  in  v.  7, 
probably  indicates  that  the  sequel  was  in  a  second  and  continuous  dream, 
which  took  place  soon  after  having  been  waked  by  the  first.  —  T^s ,  a 
much  contested  word,  which  has  given  rise  to  a  multitude  of  whimsies. 
Whoever  wishes  to  see  them,  may  consult  Havernick  in  loc.  I  prefer  a 
resort  to  a  more  direct  method  of  investigation.  I  will  merely  state  the 
result  here.  That  the  appellation  here  is  a  mere  exchange  of  names, 
seems  plain  from  3:  25,  where  a  son  of  the  gods  designates  the  same 
personage  that  is  called  ttsxbia  his  angel  in  v.  28.  So  Polychronius 
<(Comm.  in  loc.  in  edit.  Maii),  a  writer  of  the  fourth  century,  when  com 
menting  on  the  Greek  version  of  Theodotion :  "  EIQ  is  a  Heb.  word, 
and  signifies  watchfulness,  angel."  Still  further  confirmation  of  the  view 
given  above  is  it,  that  in  Dan.  8:  13,  Gabriel  is  expressly  named  lai'TjD , 
just  as  TIS  is  here  said  to  be  la^g .  —  nns ,  Part.  act. ;  for  vowels, 
see  §  .12.  1.  c. 


REMARKS  ON  III.  10.  103 

First  of  all,  it  is  plain  that  this  expression,  in  the  mouth  of  a  polytheistic 
speaker,  is  to  be  explained,  if  possible,  in  accordance  with  his  theosophy. 
In  regard  to  this,  one  thing  is  certain,  viz.  that  the  worship  of  the  sun,  moon, 
planets,  and  stars,  was  originally  spread  over  all  middle  and  hither  Asia. 
Rhode,  in  his  learned  and  fundamental  investigation  of  Parsism,  (Die  heilige 
Sage  des  Zendvolks),  has  shown  beyond  fair  controversy,  at  least  as  it  seems 
to  me,  that  the  religion  of  Zoroaster  preceded  the  empires  of  Assyria,  Baby 
lon,  and  Persia ;  and  that  the  worship  just  mentioned,  pervaded,  at  an  early 
period,  the  whole  extent  of  the  empire  of  Jemshid,  i.  e.  the  whole  extent  of 
the  ancient  Aria.  Subsequently  to  this,  each  empire  that  followed,  and 
each  country  of  any  considerable  eminence  and  extent,  engrafted  more  or 
less  of  idolatrous  rites  upon  the  original  nature-worship  of  Zoroaster.  So  it 
clearly  was  in  Babylon,  at  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  still,  we  find 
here  the  Magi,  an  order  of  priests  appropriate  to  the  religion  of  Zoroaster. 
We  may  therefore  reasonably  expect  to  find  other  relics  of  the  more  ancient 
religion. 

The  Bun-Dehesh,  a  commentary  on  the  Zend-Avesta,  contains  an  extract 
from  it  which  shows  clearly  the  name  and  object  of  the  watchers,  in  the 
ancient  system  of  Zoroaster.  It  runs  thus  :  "  Ormuzd  has  set  four  watchers 
in  the  four  quarters  of  the  heavens,  to  keep  their  eye  upon  the  host  of  stars. 
They  are  bound  to  keep  watch  over  the  hosts  of  celestial  stars.  One  stands 
here,  as  the  watcher  of  his  circle  ;  the  other,  there.  He  has  placed  them  at 
such  and  such  posts,  as  watchers  over  such  and  such  a  circle  of  the  heavenly 
regions ;  and  this  by  his  own  power  and  might.  . . .  Tashter  guards  the  east, 
Satevis  watches  the  west,  Venant  the  south,  and  Haftorang  the  north." 
Rhode,  p.  267.  Zend-Avesta,  Bun-Dehesh,  II.  pp.  60,  61.  Now  as  it  is  cer 
tain,  that  the  Babylonians  retained  the  worship  of  "  the  host  of  heaven,"  it 
seems  very  rational  to  suppose,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  here  alludes  to  those 
secondary  deities,  who  were  commissioned  by  superior  ones  to  watch  and  to 
oversee.  The  names  of  these,  as  given  above,  are  the  names  respectively  of 
four  of  the  planets  ;  each  of  which  was  under  the  guardianship  of  one  of  the 
Amshaspands  or  archangels  of  the  Zoroastrian  system.  They  ranked  next 
to  the  sun  and  moon,  and  were  undoubted  objects  of  Babylonian  worship. 
It  would  seem  that  Nebuchadnezzar  adds  the  epithet  "O^fe ,  in  order  to  dis 
tinguish  the  good  class  of  watchers  from  the  bad  ones ;  for  Ahriman,  the  evil 
genius  had  his  Archdevs  and  his  Devs,  who  corresponded  in  rank  with  the 
Amshaspands  and  Izeds  of  the  Zend-Avesta,  and  who  watched  to  do  evil 
as  anxiously  as  the  others  did  in  order  to  do  good.  Nebuchadnezzar  means 
then,  by  using  "PS* ,  to  designate  one  of  the  gods,  i.  e.  a  superior  or  spiritual 
being,  and  one  who  is  employed  as  a  icatcher  and  messenger  of  the  highest 
deities,  which  he  calls  the  holy  gods,  whom,  as  supreme,  he  had  just  before 
mentioned.  That  the  word  V3?  in  itself  is  of  a  generic  meaning,  seems  quite 
probable  from  the  explanatory  ttj^nj?1!,  which  is  in  apposition  and  exegetical; 
and  still  further,  from  the  fact  that  the  Syriac  Liturgies  not  unfrequently 
employ  it  to  designate  archangels,  sometimes  Gabriel,  and  at  other  times 
the  evil  angels ;  i.  e.  it  designates  rank  or  station,  not  character.  So  the 
book  of  Enoch  employs  it  for  good  angels,  (e.  g.  in  ch.  xx.  it  is  said  of  the 
seven  archangels,  that  "  they  watch")  ;  and  for  evil  ones,  Enoch  1:  5.  10:11, 
13, 18,  et  al.  saepe  ;  see  in  Ges.  Thes.  p.  1006.  The  suggestion  that  V2>  = 
Heb.  "PX  ,  nuncius,  seems  not  to  be  entitled  to  much  weight. 


104  CHAP.  IV.  11,  12. 

Lengerke  has  brought  out  a  conclusion  similar  to  the  one  just  stated,  but 
from  somewhat  different  premises.  He  fixes  upon  a  passage  in  Yesht  Far- 
vardin  (Zend.  Av.  II.  Garde  23.  p.  257),  which  says,  in  respect  to  the  Am- 
shaspands  :  "  O  that  they  might  watch  over  souls  from  on  high !"  This  falls 
in  with  what  is  said  above  ;  but  being  merely  a  part  of  the  Zend-ritual  of 
prayers,  it  would  not  be  so  likely  to  be  known  to  the  Babylonians  of  Nebu 
chadnezzar's  time,  as  the  more  general  principles  of  the  system  to  which  I 
have  made  an  appeal.  It  may  serve,  however,  as  a  confirmation  of  them. 
Nor  is  the  opinion,  which  I  have  ventured  to  give,  anything  new  ;  although 
the  reasons  for  it,  in  part,  may  not  heretofore  have  been  produced.  Jerome 
(Comm.  in  loc.)  says :  "  Theodotion  has  retained  the  word  HQ  (=  T^), 
which  signifies  angels,  because  they  always  watch,  and  are  in  readiness  for 
the  divine  commands."  This  would  be  sufficient  ground  among  Hebrews, 
with  their  views  of  angelology,  for  employing  such  a  word  to  designate  an 
gels  ;  but  still  we  find  no  example  of  it  in  actual  Heb.  usage.  Nebuchad 
nezzar  had  reasons  different  from  those  of  the  Hebrews,  for  naming  his 
secondary  gods  watchers,  as  we  have  seen  above. 


(11)  He  cried  aloud  and  spake  thus  :  Cut  down  the  tree  and  lop  off  its  branches  ; 
strip  off  its  foliage,  and  scatter  abroad  its  fruit  :  let  the  beasts  fly  from  beneath  it,  and 
the  birds  from  its  branches. 


b^ra  ,  with  strength,  which,  when  applied  to  the  voice,  means  of  course 
aloud.  —  wa,  Imper.Peal  of  'Tna  .  This  is  applied  to  felling,  or  cutting  down 
the  tree.  —  ixsg  ,  Pael  Imper.  of  ^SJD  ;  for  (-)  in  the  second  syllable, 
see  §  12.  1.  b.  The  word  means  (as  we  express  it)  clip  off,  lop  off.  — 
*nnj<  ,  Aph.  of  ""ins  ,  (*nnx  instead  of  the  normal  sntix  ,  because  of  the 
final  *i),  decussit,  strike  off,  or  strip  off,  appropriate  to  removing  the  foliage. 
—  srrna=  Heb.^ta,  Pael  ("n  for  3  because  of  the  Resh),  scatter,  dis 
perse.  Applied  to  the  fruit,  it  means  that  it  is  no  more  to  be  appro 
priated  for  food,  as  before.  The  commands,  in  all  these  cases,  are  ad 
dressed  to  the  implied  attendant  retinue  of  the  watcher.  —  ipri  ,  Fut.  Peal 
of  115.  The  beasts  and  birds  are  to  flee,  lest  the  fall  of  the  tree  should 
crush  them.  The  ruinous  state  of  the  tree  after  felling,  is  clearly  indi 
cated  ;  but  the  sequel  shows  that  its  utter  destruction  is  not  intended. 
The  imagery  employed  designates,  in  a  lively  manner,  the  wealth,  splen 
dor,  and  extensive  influence  or  power  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  was  very 
conspicuous  as  the  head  of  a  great  empire  and  had  dependants  almost 
without  number.  Of  all  these  appendages  he  was  to  be  deprived. 

(12)  But  its  root-trunk  leave  in  the  earth,  and  with  a  chain  of  iron  and  brass 
among  the  tender  herbage  of  the  field  ;  and  with  the  dew  of  heaven  shall  it  be  bathed, 
and  with  the  beasts  shall  be  its  portion  among  the  herbage  of  the  earth. 


ir-pEna  ,  of  its  roots,  with  pi.  suflf.  from  isnfcj  .     The  root-trunk  means, 
the  trunk  that  is  left  after  the  tree  is  felled,  which  is  attached  to  the  roots 


CHAP.  IV.  13.  105 

that  bury  themselves  in  the  earth.  This  contains  a  germ,  which  will  again 
sprout  up;  comp.  Pasa  in  Isa.  6:  13,  and  yta  in  Isa.  11:  1,  which  pre 
sent  the  same  idea.  —  jlTie  chain  of  iron  and  brass,  to  be  put  round  the 
trunk,  seems  designed  to  preserve  it  from  being  opened  or  cracked  by 
the  heat  of  the  sun,  so  as  to  admit  moisture  which  would  rot  it.  There 
could  be  no  need  of  chaining  the  trunk  to  the  earth  in  order  to  secure  it, 
for  the  roots  made  it  fast  there.  I  do  not  understand  this,  moreover,  as 
symbolizing  the  chaining  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  a  madman,  but  merely 
as  a  token  of  the  care  with  which  the  germ  of  the  tree  would  be  preserved, 
notwithstanding  the  destruction  of  all  besides.  See  the  interpretation  in 
vs.  20 — 23.  —  xxrvia,  emph.  of  xn1!;  some  editions  Hebraize  here, 
writing  nxn'i  .  —  fcO2,  emph.  of  la.  —  ba,  see  Lex.  under  Heb.Vfecr. 

—  S?3-j^i ,  Fut.  Ithpael,  with  the  n  in  rx  transposed  and  changed  to  ta , 
§  10.  5.  b.     A  copious  bedewing,  or  (as  we  say)  bathing  with  dew,  is  natu 
rally  meant  here  ;  for  what  would  plunging  into  the  dew  mean  ?  —  ^nTTi], 
emph.  of  JOpn .  —  Its  portion  shall  be  among  the  herbage,  etc.  ;  here  the 
writer  forsakes  his  symbol,  viz.  the  root-trunk,  and  speaks  appropriately 
only  of  that  which  the  symbol  represents,  viz.  the  person  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  who,  during  his  madness,  was  to  feed  upon  the  herbage  of  the  field. 

—  n^bn i ,  with  suff.,  from  the  rather  unusual  ground-form  p^n,  §  28.  a.  2. 
The  difference  between   abs  and  xxn'n  is,  that  the  latter  means  fresh, 
green,  growing  herbage,  while  the  former  designates  the  generic  idea. 

(13)  His  heart  shall  be  changed  from  [that  of]  men,  and  the  heart  of  a  beast  shall 
be  given  to  him,  and  seven  times  shall  pass  over  him. 

In  other  words,  he  shall  lose  his  human  sympathies,  and  acquire  those 
of  the  brutes.  But  there  is  diversity  among  critics,  in  the  explanation 
of  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.  Gesenius,  Rosenm.,  Winer,  De  Wette, 
and  others,  take  ",£  in  Kda&t  "ja ,  in  a  privative  sense,  (which  is  frequent 
in  Hebrew),  and  give  the  meaning  thus  :  His  heart  shall  be  changed  from 
that  which  is  human,  i.  e.  from  being  the  heart  of  a  man.  Lengerke  con 
tends,  that  the  only  grammatical  sense  of  which  the  phrase  is  properly 
susceptible,  is  this,  viz.  his  heart  shall  be  changed  while  he  is  far  from  men, 
i.  e.  when  he  is  driven  into  exile  among  the  beasts.  But  although  he  is 
very  confident  in  this  peculiar  view  of  the  passage,  it  seems  to  have 
something  of  the  vartQor  TTQOTEQOV  in  it ;  for  the  king's  change  of  heart 
was  the  occasion  of  his  fleeing  from  the  abodes  of  man,  not  an  event  that 
followed  after  he  had  gone  away.  Besides,  from  the  usage  of  this  book, 
the  verb  Kits,  associated  with  "jri  ,  has  appropriately  the  meaning  diver- 
sits  fuit  ab,  aliudesse,  mutari.  comp.  Dan.  7:  3,  7, 19,  23,  24.  We  might 
therefore  well  translate  thus :  Cor  ejus  diversumfiet  ab  humano.  In  the 


106  CHAP.  IV.  13. 

version  above,  I  have  expressed  the  first  clause  thus :  His  heart  shallbe 
changed  from  [that  of]  men  ;  and  I  can  have  no  doubt,  that  the  Chaldee 
phrase  is  elliptical,  or  rather  brachylogical,  in  which  (as  oftentimes  in  the 
Hebrew)  a  repetition  of  the  preceding  noun  is  implied,  although  not  ex 
pressed.  I  have  substituted  the  pronoun  for  it.  The  second  clause  makes 
the  sense  thus  given  altogether  clear.  In  xdiis  ,  the  vowels  belong  to 
the  Qeri  Kdax ,  but  the  Kethibh  shows  a  not  improbable  Hebraizing  form, 
and  is  to  be  read  Kiaiax ,  as  also  in  v.  14.  Yet  since  vs.  22,  30,  support  the 
Qeri  here,  it  is  perhaps  orthographically  preferable.  —  *fis&\ ,  Fut.  Pael  of 
aoia ,  3  plur.  without  a  subject,  and  therefore  to  be  translated  passively, 
§  49.  3.  b.  —  ^rnrn ,  Fut.  Ithpeal  of  nrn ;  for  the  end-syllable  ^rn-  see 
p.  49.  2.  —  "pw?  ,  pi.  of  THS  ,  which  shows  itself  (by  the  Dagh.)  to  be  a 
derivate  of  Tis? ,  to  compute,  number,  etc/  Etymologically,  then,  it  would 
seem  to  mean  a  computed  or  defined  time  or  season.  C.  B.  Michaelis, 
Ges.,  Rosenm.,  Winer,  Leng.,  and  nearly  all  the  critics  agree,  that  year 
is  the  probable  meaning ;  for  in  7:  25,  (and  so  "is^ ,  a  kindred  form  in 
12:  7),  and  in  Apoc.  12:  14,  this  meaning  is  quite  certain  ;  comp.  here 
vs.  20,  22,  29,  where  'j'ns  is  connected  with  tjbn  ,  to  pass  on  or  over.  But 
Havernick  comments  thus  on  Winer,  who  in  his  Heb.Lex.  says :  "  Tern- 
pus  prop,  definitum,  hinc  annus  [sic !],  deinde  generatim  [?]  tempus." 
The  comments  are  contained  in  the  exclamation  and  interrogation  points, 
which  Hav.  has  inserted.  After  all,  he  is  obliged  to  concede  that  some 
definable  season  or  time  is  meant ;  only  he  says,  that '  this  must  be  some 
astrological  period.'  But  as  Nebuchadnezzar  is  not  the  original  speaker 
here,  but  only  relates  the  words  of  the  watcher ;  moreover,  since  *fi3  is 
elsewhere  employed  in  this  book  plainly  for  the  common  year ;  and 
since  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  here  that  points  us  to  an  astrological 
period,  or  enables  us  to  determine  what  it  is ;  I  do  not  well  see  how  we 
are  to  avoid  the  conclusion  of  C.  B.  Michaelis  and  so  many  other  He 
braists.  —  ^H^?  >  over  him  or  uP°n  him,  the  prep,  b?  conveying  the 
adjunct  notion  of  something  which  is  burdensome  or  troublesome.  That 
the  number  seven,  in  this  case,  is  to  be  literally  and  not  figuratively  un 
derstood,  seems  the  more  probable,  because  the  nature  of  the  case  easily 
admits  of  a  literal  construction.  Whatever  difficulties  our  present  lack  of 
historical  knowledge  may  throw  in  the  way  of  explaining  the  matter,  it 
cannot  alter  the  plain  and  obvious  exegesis  of  our  text.  (These  difficul 
ties  will  be  canvassed,  at  the  close  of  the  present  chapter).  The  attempt, 
made  by  many  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  to  lessen  the  period  of  seven  years, 
by  adopting  the  Persian  mode  of  counting  years  by  their  half-yearly 
feasts,  and  so  making  six  months  equal  to  an  "fis,  stands  directly  op 
posed  to  7:  25  and  12:  7.  The  phrase  d^nsrt  wS  in  Est.  1:  13,  casts 


CHAP.  IV.  14. 

no  light  on  the  expression  before  us,  since  it  applies  to  p 
and  State-occurrences,  (just  as  we  employ  the  word  times  for  a  like  pur* 
pose),  and  not  to  defined  periods  of  time  proper ;  so  that  we  have  no 
parallel  for  the  sense  here  defended  by  Havernick. 

(14)  Bv  a  decision  of  the  Watchers  is  the  decree,  and  a  command  of  the  holy  Ones 
is  the  thing  required,  in  order  that  the  living  may  know  that  the  most  High  is  ruler 
over  the  kingdom  of  men,  and  giveth  it  to  whomsoever  he  pleases,  and  setteth  up 
over  it  the  humhlest  of  men. 

Here  again  is  much  controversy.  I  shall  not  detail  it,  but  simply 
state  the  grounds  of  my  own  exegesis.  That  rvrra  (const,  st.)  means  de 
cision,  there  can  be  no  room  to  doubt,  inasmuch  as  the  root  is  *ita ,  lit. 
secare,  metaph.  decernere.  The  word  "p^p? ,  in  this  case  means  the  Coun 
cil  of  the  watchers,  as  viewed  by  the  king,  i.  e.  this  king  relates  the  decree 
of  Heaven  in  language  accordant  with  his  own  views  of  theology.  The 
Amshaspands  were  the  associates  and  councillors  of  Ormuzd,  who  in 
deed  was  only  primus  inter  pares,  in  an  emphatic  sense.  To  them  the 
actual  government  of  the  world  was  committed.  They  are  the  overseers, 
the  watchers.  The  messenger,  although  only  one  of  them  (v.  10),  em 
ploys  the  united  authority  of  all  in  the  present  case,  in  order  to  strengthen 
his  declaration. —  sanB,  decree,  see  Ezra  4: 17.  This  is  one  undoubted 
sense  of  the  word  ;  and  one,  moreover,  which  is  altogether  appropriate 
here.  —  ^y& ,  command,  from  the  well  known  sense  of  IEK  ,  to  com 
mand,  in  the  Chald.  dialect.  —  T^IE ,  the  same  here  as  in  v.  10,  IB^E)!  W , 
only  that  the  pi.  is  here  used,  in  conformity  with  the  preceding  "p'")nS! . 
The  holy  Ones  are  the  Watchers,  whose  united  council  have  determined 
on  the  humiliation  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  —  Kttbxir ,  emph.  of  xbxttj ,  requi 
sition,  demand,  referring,  as  I  apprehend,  to  the  preceding  command 
given  in  v.  11,  to  cut  down  the  tree,  etc.  The  declaration  here  is,  that  the 
whole  sentence  of  humiliation,  which  had  been  proclaimed  by  the  "vs , 
i.e.  a  single  watcher  (v.  10),  is  a  matter  decreed  and  fixed  upon  in  the 
council  of  heaven.  —  I'n  rns'n  nj ,  lit.  until  the  circumstance  or  matter  that, 
stronger  and  more  periphrastic  than  ^15  in  v.  22,  but  in  substance  the 
same  —  until  that,  until.  In  manner  it  resembles  the  ^  ^riir-^3 ,  which 

we  have  already  so  often  met  with.  —  *fi"^.  ?  Fut.  of  s*r* ,  §  6.  e.  2. 

K^n ,  pi.  emph.  of  ^n ,  the  living,  means  men  in  general,  or  all  men. 
It  is  expressed  generically  here,  although  a  special  application  to  Nebu 
chadnezzar  is  intended;  for  so  Daniel  applies  it  in  the  sequel. —  tr^  , 
adj.  form,  endowed  with  dominion,  i.e.  ruler. —  N"^",  Qeri  nx^s",  emph. 
of  ilbs,  see  on  3:  26.  —  Kdi3st,  as  in  v.  13.  —  n|:rp,  suff.  Fut.  Peal  of 
•jna,  for  suff.,  p.  58.  Rem.  1,  the  W  being  fern,  and  =  ft)  (see  Par.  on 


108  CHAP.  IV.  15,  16. 

p.  34),  and  referring  to  nia^.  The  change  of  vowels  here  (-  for  - ) 
seems  to  depend  on  the  Gutt.  n. —  For  D^CDX  bee ,  as  indicating  the 
lowest  of  men,  see  §  58.  2.  —  nibs' ,  the  vowels  belong  to  the  Qeri  ttb§ , 
which  gives  a  sing,  form  and  suffix,  contrary  to  usage  in  regard  to  this 
preposition,  which  with  a  suff.  has  a  plur.  form,  §  38.  2.  b.  It  should  be 
written  mbs;  which  is  a  contraction  of  xrpbs< ,  see  Par.  2,  p.  35.  In  this 
last  clause  also  the  sentiment  is  generic,  not  being  applied  individually, 
but  intended  to  show  that  God  can  elevate  to  dominion  the  lowest  of  men 
as  well  as  the  highest,  so  that  full  and  entire  power  and  dominion  belong 
to  him,  and  not  to  perishing  men. 

(15)  This  is  the  dream  which  I  king  Nebuchadnezzar  saw  ;  and  do  thou,  Belte- 
shazzar,  declare  the  interpretation,  because  that  all  the  wise  men  of  my  kingdom  are 
not  able  to  make  known  to  me  the  interpretation  ;  but  thou  art  able,  for  the  spirit  of 
the  holy  gods  is  in  thee. 

hPipx  the  Kethibh  should  be  read,  which  the  Qeri  has  changed  to  the 
more  usual  tnax  ,  without  any  necessity  ;  comp.  2  pers.  sing.  masc.  in  the 
Praet.  of  Pael  and  Aphel,  Par.  p.  44,  which  have  a  like  ending  in  this 
person.  —  TCJK  ,  with  Qamets  in  pause.  —  T^  5  Part.  pi.  —  ^srwyrinb  , 
Inf.  with  suff.  p.  56.  e.  The  spirit  of  the  holy  gods,  etc.,  shows  that  Nebu 
chadnezzar  retains  his  customary  diction  in  speaking  of  superior  beings. 

(in)  Then  Daniel,  whose  name  is  Belteshazzar,  was  stricken  with  astonishment, 
for  a  moment,  and  his  thoughts  agitated  him  ;  the  king  answered  and  said  :  Let  not 
the  dream  and  the  interpretation  agitate  thee  !  Belteshazzar  answered  and  said  : 
Let  the  dream  be  to  those  who  hate  thee,  and  the  interpretation  of  it  to  thine  enemies. 

The  repetition  of  the  name  of  Belteshazzar,  which  is  here  made  by  the 
king,  accords  with  his  description  of  Daniel  in  v.  5.  above.  —  frcSwrN, 
Ithpoal  of  &T212,  §  14.  1.  1,  corresponding  with  the  Hithpoal  of  the  Heb. 
from  verbs  ys  .  For  the  exchange  of  'C  and  n ,  see  §  10.  5.  b.  For  the  first 
syllable  with  Seghol,  see  §  12.  1.  5,  comp.  §  25.  2.  It  is  Syriasm.  — 
h2(T,  prop,  an  intensive  form,  §  28.  b.  6,  the  Dagh.  f.  being  omitted  in  the  S, 
of  course  the  preceding  vowel  is  prolonged.  The  emph.  form  is  nnsia. 
As  ac'd  means  to  look,  so  this  derivate  means  a  look,  a  glance  of  the  eye, 
the  twinkling  of  an  eye  ;  and  accordingly,  I  have  rendered  it  moment. 
Our  English  version  here  (hour}  mistakes  the  true  sense  of  the  word, 
and  thus  states  what  seems  to  be  very  improbable.  —  is'in  =  our  Eng 
lish  indef.  article  a  ;  and  often  so  in  Chald.  and  in  the  later  Hebrew. — 
iftnrn  (ra-yd-no-hi) ,  pi.  suff.  of  VVIH.  The  root  ns")  has  for  its  lead 
ing  sense,  to  desire,  will,  wish,  purpose  ;  but  a  secondary  sense  appears 
plainly  to  be  that  of  thinking,  reflection,  cogitation.  Evidently  desire  or  will 
would  be  inappropriate  in  our  text.  —  ft&rry] ,  Fut.  Pael  with  suff. 
For  suff.,  see  p.  58.  Rem.  1.  —  anirB,  with  vowels  for  the  Qeri 


CHAP.  IV.  17,  18.  109 

i.  e.  the  Qeri  adopts  the  suffix  form  which  occurs  in  the  sequel  of  the 
verse ;  while  the  Kethibh  retains  the  absolute  emph.  form,  which  is 
equally  well.  —  iJOia ,  contract  for  iJ'p.'E  ,  a  participial  from  JOE  ,  mean 
ing  my  lord.  A  marginal  reading  bids  us  write  **vz ,  and  the  vowels  in 
the  text  belong  to  this  latter  form.  But  the  emendation,  although  feasi 
ble,  is  unadvisable,  since  the  dropping  of  the  x  obscures  the  etymology. 

—  T^swi-jb ,  pi.  Part,  pres.  with  pi.  suff.,  from  &»d ;  for  suff.,  p.  35.  Par.  2.* 

—  "H"1  T?^  >  pl«  of  is  with  suff. 

The  astonishment  of  Daniel,  (not  for  an  hour,  which  would  have  ren 
dered  Nebuchadnezzar  very  impatient,  but  for  a  moment),  was  evidently 
the  result  of  his  consciousness,  as  soon  as  the  dream  was  fully  related,  of 
the  interpretation  which  must  be  given  to  it.  His  complaisance,  kind 
feeling,  and  fidelity  to  the  truth,  are  equally  conspicuous  in  his  answer. 
Comity  led  him  to  say,  (what  at  the  moment  he  undoubtedly  felt)  :  Let 
the  dream  be  to  those  that  hate  thee,  etc. !  Sympathy  for  the  king  who  had 
bestowed  so  much  honor  and  kindness  upon  him,  was  a  very  natural  and 
commendable  feeling.  What  he  means  to  say,  may  be  thus  expressed : 
'  I  would  that  wnat  this  dream  indicates,  might  fall  rather  upon  your  ene 
mies  than  on  yourself!'  The  king  on  his  part  is  kind  and  condescend 
ing.  He  encourages  his  pale  and  trembling  minister  to  go  on  with  the 
interpretation  assigned  to  him,  be  it  what  it  may.  He  summoned  reso 
lution  to  give  such  a  command,  even  after  he  saw  the  agitation  of  Daniel, 
when  the  narration  of  the  dream  had  been  completed.  Doubtless  the  for 
mer  experience  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  to  the  prophetic  power  of  Daniel, 
must  have  inspired  him  with  respect  for  the  man  ;  and  hence  his  lenient 
treatment  of  him. 

(17)  As  to  the  tree  which  thou  sawest,  which  became  great,  and  waxed  mighty, 
so  that  its  height  reached  to  the  heavens,  and  the  sight  of  it  to  all  the  earth  ; 

I  have  made  the  English  construction  of  the  sentence  to  accord  with 
the  Chaldee.  Nibix  is  absolute,  and  1'in  nrn  I'n  is  mere  specification  of 
particulars  belonging  to  it,  i.  e.  exegetical  apposition,  which  is  continued 
through  the  remainder  of  the  verse,  and  also  through  v.  18.  —  Naa*;,  ve- 
nit,  advenit,  came  to,  reached.  It  has  a  Fut.  form,  which  indicates  that  the 
1  at  the  beginning  of  the  clause  is  conditional,  viz.  that,  so  that,  §  44.  4. 

—  nryitn ,  see  on  v.  8. 

(18)  And  its  foliage  was  goodly,  its  fruit  abundant,  and  food  for  all  was  upon  it ; 
under  it  dwelt  the  beast  of  the  field,  and  among  its  boughs  the  birds  of  the  air  found 
lodging  ; 

*  In  the  copy  of  the  Gramm.  which  is  before  me,  the  7p—  suff.  is  without  its 
vowel  (  )  ;  which  should  be  supplied. 

10 


110  CHAP.  IV.  19—22. 


See  v.  9  above.  —  isrtpi  ,  in  the  Fut.  and  1331^  Fut.  fern.  pi.  (i}BX  be 
ing  of  the  common  gender)  seem  to  be  used  like  the  Hebrew  Future,  to 
designate  action  habitual,  i.  e.  they  are  real  Imperfects. 

(19)Thou  art  he,0  king,  who  hast  become  great  and  waxed  mighty,  and  thy  greatness 
hath  increased  and  reached  to  the  heavens,  and  thy  dominion  to  the  end  of  the  earth. 

The  apodosis  of  the  sentence,  which  begins  with  v.  17  and  comprises 
v.  18,  begins  with  this  verse.  —  rrq^  ,  Qeri  n^"]  ,  a  possible  but  not 
usual  orthography.  The  true  form  is  the  Kethibh,  which  should  be  writ 
ten  rro-i.  —  fis^n,  2  pers.  of  r^n..  —  nn^,  3  fern,  of  xa^.  —  noa, 
3  fern.  Peal,  for  na^q  ,  i.  e.  Peal  3d  fern,  is  pointed  so  as  to  correspond 
with  the  ending  of  the  same  person  in  all  the  derived  conjugations  ;  see 
in  Par.  p.  72.  The  Oriental  court-style  is  sufficiently  evident  in  this 
verse,  as  often  elsewhere.  Faithfulness  to  the  truth  in  Daniel  did  not 
require  him  to  break  through  all  the  usual  forms  of  courtesy,  as  to  the 
manner  of  communicating  it. 

(20)  And  that  the  king  saw  a  Watcher,  even  a  Holy  One,  descending  from  heaven, 
who  said  :  Cut  down  the  tree  and  destroy  it  ;  yet  leave  the  root-trunk  in  the  earth, 
and  with  a  chain  of  iron  and  brass,  among  the  tender  herbage  of  the  field  ;  and  with 
the  dew  of  heaven  shall  it  be  bathed,  and  with  the  beast  of  the  field  shall  be  his  por 
tion,  until  seven  times  shall  pass  over  him. 


See  on  vs.  12,  13  above.  —  nna,  Part.  §  12.  1.  c.  —  ins&an,  Pael 
Imper.  with  suff.  p.  34.  Par.  2.  The  last  clause  forsakes  the  symbol,  and 
introduces  the  person  signified  by  it;  see  on  v.  12. 

(21  )  This  is  the  interpretation,  0  king  ;  and  it  is  a  decree  of  the  most  High,  which 
comes  upon  my  lord  the  king. 


Comp.  in  v.  14,  for  the  language.  —  na^  ,  see  in  v.  19.  —  ix-ya  ,  as 
in  v.  16.  —  In  Daniel's  mouth  the  decree  is  no  longer  called  a  decree  of 
the  watchers,  but  of  the  most  high  God.  Each  party  represents  the  mat 
ter,  in  a  manner  which  accords  with  his  own  theology. 

(22)  Thou  shalt  be  driven  from  men,  and  with  the  beast  of  the  field  shall  be  thy 
dwelling,  and  herbage  shall  they  give  thee  for  food  as  the  oxen,  and  with  the  dew  of 
heaven  shall  they  bathe  thee  ;  and  seven  times  shall  pass  over  thee,  until  thou  shalt 
know  that  the  most  High  is  ruler  over  the  kingdom  of  men,  and  giveth  it  to  whom 
soever  he  may  please.  (+  ^  & 

rjb  ,  Ace.  —  VTT-J  without  any  Nom.,  and  therefore  to  be  rendered 
passively,  as  in  the  version.  Lit.  They  shall  drive  thee  away,  §  49.  3.  b.  — 
Kinb  ,  see  on  2:  20.  —  Tp'ro  ,  deriv.  of  "i^rn  ,  with  suff.  —  *p^iP3  ,  i.  e. 
like  [the  herbage]  of  the  oxen;  see  v.  13,  where  is  a  like  ellipsis  af 
ter  I~Q  .  —  •j'rassa'j  ,  Pael  Fut.  ;  "pnaxa  ,  pi.  Part,  both  without  a  subject, 


CHAP.  IV.  23,  24.  Ill 

and  therefore  they  might  be  rendered  passively  as  in  the  first  part  of  the 
verse.  But  in  these  last  cases,  our  idiom  does  not  forbid  a  literal  ver 
sion  with  an  indefinite  Nominative.  —  ttSSFn  see  on  v.  14. 


(23)  And  that  they  commanded  to  let  alone  the  root-trunk  of  the  tree,  thy  king 
dom  is  established  for  thee,  from  the  time  when  thou  shalt  know  that  the  Heavens 
bear  rule. 


ME*;?  ,  adj.  fern,  of  n*j?  .  —  ^  ,  like  ^rtf  ,  is  often  used  in  respect  to  a 
point  of  time=when.  —  "jn^TlJ,  written  defective  in  the  final  syllable,  "jr.  — 
for  "pn  —  .  Heavens  do  rule  expresses  the  dominion  of  the  Godhead, 
and  is  a  phrase  nowhere  used  in  the  0.  Test.,  except  in  this  book  ;  but 
in  the  N.  Test.,  and  among  the  Rabbins,  it  is  very  common.  So  in  the 
heathen  writers.  It  seems  to  be  employed  partly  in  accommodation  to 
the  Chaldee  diction,  e.  g.  the  ivatchers,  the  holy  Ones,  etc.  It  must  be  re 
garded  as  brachylogy  here,  and  as  being  equivalent  to  the  heavenly  Potvers. 
In  the  mouth  of  Daniel,  we  cannot  regard  it  as  designed  to  signify  what 
it  might  do  in  the  mouth  of  a  Parsi,  who  would  employ  it  in  a  kind  of 
literal  way. 

(24)  Wherefore,  0  king,  let  my  counsel  seem  good  to  thee,  and  so  break  oft'  thy  sin 
by  righteousness,  and  thine  iniquities  by  compassion  to  the  afflicted,  if  perhaps  there 
may  be  a  prolongation  of  thy  prosperity. 


suff.  st.  of  'rfe'Q  counsel.  —  tpbs!>  ,  which  the  Qeri  wrongly 
changes  to  7^2  .  It  is  stronger  than  b  simply  would  be  here,  i.  e.  it 
conveys  the  idea  of  a  stronger  impression  upon  the  king's  mind  than  tjb 
would  designate.  —  "H^ri  ,  sing,  with  suff.  of  ^n  ,  a  derivate  of  awn  to 
sin.  —  T^D?.  pi-  suff.  emph.,  for  the  more  normal  Tjrrn?.;  in  the  for 
mer,  1  with  a  Dagh.  f.  after  it  stands  in  lieu  of  the  1  in  the  latter;  but  this 
diversity  is  merely  orthographic.  The  sing,  is  K^r  >  ^em'  (sometimes 
written  K^SJ  )  ;  the  pi.  abs.  would  be  "j^js  ,  lit.  perversities.  —  h(rTQ  Inf. 
nominascens  of  "jsn  .  —  T£?  >  m  pause,  pi.  Part.  Peil  of  FiS"  ,  p.  91. 
Par.  VII.  —  "(n  ,  if,  if  perhaps  ;  comp.  el  agn  in  Acts  8:  22.  — 
—  ^n"!:?W  the  suff.  state  of  JTjb'j  ,  lit.  tranquillity,  safety,  and  so  prosperity, 
as  translated  above.  Many  critics  render  «i£itsa  by  alms  or  kindness  ; 
which  sense  indeed  the  word  has  among  the  Talmudists  and  the  Rabbins, 
and  also  in  the  Samaritan.  Ges.  (in  Lex.)  so  translates  it,  in  the  present 
case.  In  Heb.  it  sometimes  means  liberality,  kindness  ;  but  in  the  in 
stance  before  us,  it  stands  as  the  opposite  of  7£^ri  ,  which  does  not  mean 
avarice  or  rapine,  but  is  more  generic.  I  have  given  it,  therefore,  an 
appropriate  meaning  in  the  version  above. 

The  sum  of  what  Daniel  says  in  this  verse,  is,  that  although  the  sen 
tence  of  chastisement  has  gone  forth,  still  a  speedy  and  thorough  repent- 


112  CHAP.  IV.  25. 

ance  and  change  of  conduct  may  perhaps  avert  it.  With  the  Hebrews 
in  general  he  might  well  believe  in  this.  The  threatening  of  Jonah  to 
the  Ninevites  was  averted,  Jonah  3: 10.  Hezekiah's  predicted  death  was 
averted  by  prayer,  2  K.  20: 1 — 5.  See  a  full  declaration  of  such  a  prin 
ciple  in  the  divine  government,  in  Jer.  18:  7,  8 ;  and  the  like  elsewhere, 
in  a  variety  of  ways.  Daniel,  with  his  deep  sympathy  for  the  king, 
opens  before  him  a  probable  way  of  escape  from  the  threatenings,  of  which 
he  had  been  the  medium  of  communication.  It  seems  to  me  more  than 
probable,  that  by  Tj^^?  he  means  to  designate  the  capricious  and  tyran 
nical  behaviour  of  Nebuchadnezzar  on  some  occasions,  when  he  fell  into 
a  rage  ;  perhaps  also  to  remind  him  of  the  heavy  hand  that  pressed  on  all 
the  captives  whom  he  had  led  into  exile.  Daniel  however  does  not  name 
the  Jews  in  particular ;  for  he  might  apprehend  that  the  king  would  deem 
him  selfish  or  partial,  if  he  should  openly  plead  their  cause.  Still,  that 
•pas  afflicted,  oppressed,  had  reference  in  his  own  mind  to  the  case  of  his 
unhappy  countrymen,  seems  quite  probable.  It  was  a  deed  both  of  be 
nevolence  and  of  patriotism,  to  attempt  to  soften  the  king's  mind  in  re 
spect  to  all  who  were  hardly  dealt  by. 

(25)  The  whole  came  upon  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king. 

xVs ,  emph.  =  Heb.  bsrt  ,   the  ivhole. 

Vs.  25 — 30  narrate  in  the  third  person ;  seemingly  as  if  the  writer 
himself  had  broken  in  upon  the  course  of  the  king's  proclamation  by  his 
own  narrative.  Lengerke  and  others  accuse  the  writer  here  of  forget 
ting  himself;  and,  after  a  period  of  alleged  absence  of  mind,  they  de 
scribe  him  as  coming  to  his  recollection  again  in  v.  31,  and  then  employ 
ing,  as  at  the  outset,  the  first  person.  Lengerke  has  a  very  long  note  to 
enforce  this  view,  adorned  with  his  usual  (  !  ?  ).  Havern.  and  Hengstenb., 
in  different  ways,  had  sedulously  endeavored  to  clear  the  passage  in  ques 
tion  from  the  alleged  difficulty ;  and  against  them  his  remarks  are  di 
rected.  A  simple  solution,  indeed,  they  do  not  seem  to  have  fallen  upon. 
It  lies,  as  I  apprehend  the  matter,  in  two  things,  viz.  (1)  In  the  frequency 
with  which  the  Orientals  are  wont  to  change  persons,  where  the  same 
individual  is  spoken  of;  e.  g.  from  the  first  person  to  the  third,  Prov.  8: 
17  (Kethibh), "  /love  them  who  love  her"  [me]  :  Judg.  16: 18  (Kethibh), 
"  Delilah  .  .  .  said  :  Come  hither  now,  for  he  [Samson]  has  told  his  whole 
heart  to  her"  [to  me]  ;  1  K.  1:  33,  "  The  king  said  to  them :  Take  with 
you  the  servants  of  your  master"  [i.  e.  of  me]  ;  Est.  8:  8,  "  And  the  king 
said  .  .  .  Write  ye  ...  in  the  name  of  the  king"  [i.  e.  in  my  name].  So 
also  in  Isa.  44:  24  seq.  42:  24;  comp.  Job  12:  4.  13:  27,  28.  The  like 
exchange  between  the  2d  and  3d  persons  is  still  more  frequent.  But, 


CHAP.  IV.  26,27.  113 

(2)  The  tenor  of  narration  looks  as  if  the  king,  in  his  proclamation,  did 
not  intend  to  present  himself  as  retaining  the  same  rank  and  standing, 
during  his  mania,  that  he  assumes  everywhere  else.  He  narrates  occur 
rences  which  befel  him,  as  he  would  those  which  respected  a  third  per 
son.  So  Maurer;  and  so,  (for  the  reason  first  given  above),  Rosenmul- 
ler.  In  short,  this  whole  matter,  which  Lengerke  molds  into  a  shape 
that  will  favor  the  late  composition  of  the  book,  may  well  be  concluded  in 
the  words  of  Maurer:  "  Citra  necessitatem,  Lengerke  non  regem,  sed 
scriptorem  sui  oblitum,  hie  loqui  existimat."  We  cannot,  indeed,  compare 
this  case  with  that  of  Moses  in  the  Pentateuch,  or  of  Cesar  in  his  Com 
mentaries,  (who  employ  the  third  person),  because  each  of  them  employs 
this  person  constantly.  It  is  the  change,  in  this  case,  from  the  first  person 
to  the  third,  in  the  same  discourse,  which  creates  embarrassment.  But 
as  this  change  or  use  of  the  third  person  is  strictly  limited  to  the  history 
of  the  king's  actual  madness,  it  would  seem  to  be  the  effect  of  design,  and 
not  of  mere  forgetfulness. 

(26)  At  the  end  of  twelve  months,  he  was  walking  upon  the  royal  palace  of  Baby 
lon. 

nxf& ,  in  some  Codd.  nspb ,  rightly,  if  we  may  judge  from  this  lat 
ter  form  in  1:  2,  15.  2:  42  ;  for  the  (-)  is  immutable.  The  form  in  the 
Kethibh  must,  if  correct,  come  from  nxp .  —  ^itos  "vifi ,  twelve,  see  Par. 
masc.  on  p.  102.  —  srwb^  b^fi  b:> ,  lit.  upon  the  palace  of  the  kingdom. 
The  meaning  is  given  in  the  version  above.  So  it  is  said  of  David, 
2  Sam.  11:  2,  that  "  he  arose  from  off  his  bed,  and  walked  upon  the  roof 
of  the  house  of  the  king."  Both  expressions  are  easily  explained.  The 
roofs  of  the  houses  in  the  East  are  flat,  and  during  the  warm  weather 
they  are  the  favorite  resort  of  the  inhabitants,  during  the  night-season. 
But  Bertholdt  and  Lengerke  find  here  again  the  marks  of  composition 
by  a  foreigner ;  for  no  one,  writing  at  Babylon,  as  they  aver,  would  think 
of  saying  what  every  body  knew,  viz.  that  the  king's  palace  was  in  Babylon. 
Of  course  the  usual  (!)  is  appended  to  a  recital  of  Hengstenberg's  de 
fence  of  the  phrase.  But  I  may  beg  leave  to  ask  :  Had  Nebuchadnezzar 
only  one  palace  ?  Had  he  not,  like  all  oriental  kings  of  that  time,  palaces 
in  different  places  of  his  dominions  ?  And  if  so,  is  there  anything  sus 
picious  in  the  fact,  that  the  writer  of  this  book,  or  rather,  that  Nebuchad 
nezzar  in  his  proclamation,  should  name  specifically  to  the  people  of  his 
empire  the  exact  place  where  his  misfortune  came  upon  him  ? 

(27)  The  king  spake  and  said  :  Is  not  this  the  same  great  Babylon,  which  I  have 
built  for  a  habitation  of  royalty,  by  my  mighty  power,  and  for  the  honor  of  my  glory  ? 

n» ,  Part.,  to  commence  a  discourse  or  address ;  spake  is  the  nearest 
10* 


114  CHAP.  IV.  27. 

word  we  have  in  English  for  such  a  case.  The  king  is  speaking  within 
himself,  so  that  we  cannot  translate  by  addressed.  —  JO!"!  =  avzy,  the 
same,  the  very,  §  43.  6.  b.  —  NriSH  >  emph.  fern,  of  :n  .  —  ft—  .  .  .  "vn ,  which. 

—  Pin^a ,  first  pers.  sing,  with  suff.  ft- ,  from  &»a  .  —  The  normal  form 
would  seem  to  be  Mrpsa ,  see  Peal,  p.  72  ;   but  in  this  case  the  analogy 
of  the  2d  pers.  sing,  is  followed,  a  case  which  Winer  fails  to  notice.  — 
12^  =  ritobo,  §  31.  1.  —  C]]DP;s,  in  some  Codd.  t]pna  (the  usual  form), 
in  others  v]p?ra ;  all  of  which  are  conformable  to  the  Chaldee  idiom.     If 
the  Kethibh  is  correct,  the  (-)  is  immutable,  and  so  it  remains  in  the 
const,  state.     This  word,  joined  with  ipon  (lit.  might  of  my  strength), 
conveys  the  idea  given  in  the  version.  —  nj^b ,  (Codd.  al.  ij^ ,  with 
Qamets  immutable),  in  its  literal  meaning,  designates  what  is  precious  ; 
honor  is  a  secondary  and  derivate  meaning,  but  not  an  unfrequent  one. 

—  ^T.'l  >  my  $ory-i  I  understand  as  pertaining  to  the  splendor  of  his  own 
condition,  and  of  all  things  about  him.     In  other  words,  the  magnitude 
and  splendor  of  the  Babylonish  structures  would  redound  to  the  honor 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  who  erected  them. 

That  the  language  here  ascribed  to  Nebuchadnezzar  is  in  good  keeping 
with  the  spirit  of  Oriental  despots  like  him,  there  can  be  no  question ; 
comp.  Isa.  10:  13.  14:  13,  14.  36:  18—20.  It  has  indeed  been  suggested, 
that  '  the  writer  of  the  book  here  betrays  a  want  of  knowledge  as  to  facts, 
inasmuch  as  Babylon  was  built  long  before  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar.' 
It  was  so,  in  truth,  if  we  mean  by  built  merely  the  founding  of  a  city ;  for  its 
first  origin  goes  back  to  the  mighty  hunter,  Nirnrod,  Gen.  10:  9,  10.  Cte- 
sias,  (in  Diod.  Sic.  II.  7  seq.),  has  given  us  a  very  protracted  account  of  its 
magnificent  structures,  and  ascribes  them,  with  only  one  exception,  (the 
hanging  gardens,  ib.  §  10),  to  the  famous  and  fabled  Assyrian  Semiramis. 
Whoever  or  whatever  she  was,  the  probability  that  she  did  all  which  Cte- 
sias  ascribes  to  her,  nay  even  the  possibility,  is  out  of  all  question  ;  as  every 
intelligent  reader  may  easily  see  for  himself  by  reading  the  narration  in  Dio- 
dorus.  That  Babylon,  however,  was  a  large  city  before  the  time  of  Nebu 
chadnezzar,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But  as  Babylonia  had  become  an  inde 
pendent  province  or  kingdom  only  a  few  years  before  the  reign  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  beyond  a  question  the  city  of  Babylon  itself,  before  this  last  period, 
was  much  inferior  both  in  size  and  splendor  to  what  it  became  under  the 
fostering  care  of  its  mightiest  king.  When  Nebuchadnezzar  returned  from 
his  predatory  expedition  into  Asia  Minor  and  Egypt,  richly  laden  with 
spoils,  Berosus  says,  that  "  he  built  the  temple  of  Belus,  and  adorned  other 
structures  with  great  profusion  ;  moreover,  that  which  was  from  ancient 
times  a  city,  he  made  another  city  by  his  munificence,  building  it  anew  ;" 
Berosus,  as  quoted  by  Josephus,  Antiq.  X.  11.  1.  With  this  account  we 
may  easily  reconcile  what  Herodotus  says  of  this  city.  The  judgment  of  E.O. 
Miiller  (Handb.  der  Archaeol.  etc.  s.  265)  seems  worthy  of  confidence  here, 
for  he  was  no  ordinary  critic  :  "  We  decidedly  prefer  the  history  of  Berosus, 
drawn  from  the  archives  [of  the  temple  of  Belus],  respecting  the  origin  of  these 
structures,  to  the  fables  in  Ctesias  and  Diodorus,  which  rest  in  parton  the  popu- 


CHAP.  IV.  28,  29.  115 

lar  appellation  (Semiramis-works)  for  all  the  great  works  of  the  East."  When 
our  text  applies  the  verb  HjS  to  what  was  done  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  this  word 
is  to  be  taken  in  a  sense  that  is  by  no  means  unfrequent,  viz.  that  of  restor 
ing,  renewing,  quasi  rebuilding ;  see  Ges.  Lex.  !~!32 ,  No.  2.  It  is  even  ex 
tended  to  the  mere  fortifying  of  a  city,  1  K.  15:  17.  It  was  not  a  mere 
empty  boast,  then,  on  the  part  of  Nebuchadnezzar  that  he  had  made  Baby 
lon  great  and  splendid.  But  the  haughty  spirit  with  which  he  uttered  his 
self-gratulations,  was  the  signal  for  the  divine  displeasure  to  light  upon  him. 
As  to  Babylon  itself,  the  Heb.  Scriptures  frequently  mention  it  in  such  a 
way,  as  to  show  that  the  statement  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  regard  to  its 
magnificence,  is  not  overstrained;  comp.  Isa.  13:  19.  14:  4.  47:  5,  7  ;  to 
which  add  Rev.  16:  19.  14:  8.  Pausanias  calls  it  "the  greatest  city  on 
which  the  sun  looks  down ;"  and  Strabo  (Lib.  XVI.)  says,  that  "  one  might 
apply  to  it  the  verse :  The  great  city  is  a  great  desert"  probably  in  refer 
ence  to  its  vast  extent  (not  its  desolation),  in  which  one  might  lose  himself. 
The  mighty  power  which  Nebuchadnezzar  ascribes  to  himself  in  building 
the  city,  doubtless  refers  to  the  vast  numbers  of  men  at  his  disposal,  who 
must  have  been  employed  in  the  accomplishment  of  his  work. 

(28)  While  the  word  was  yet  in  the  mouth  of  the  king,  a  voice  came  down  from 
heaven :  To  thee  is  it  said,  0  King  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  kingdom  departeth  from  thee. 

^£3 ,  fell,  came  down;  so  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  in  Isa.  9:  7.  The 
design  of  employing  this  verb  is  to  indicate  the  source  from  which  the 
message  came,  i.  e.  from  above  or  from  heaven.  So  Mohammed  employs 
the  like  verb,  when  speaking  of  his  pretended  revelations  in  the  Koran. 
—  "P72K ,  lit.  they  say,  but  as  no  subject  of  the  Part  is  indicated,  I  have 
rendered  it  passively,  as  in  general  it  should  be  rendered  in  such  cases, 
§  49.  3.  b.  —  tny ,  3  fern,  of  sris .  —  7^2 ,  "p ,  when  it  takes  a  suffix,  in 
serts  a  Dagh.  f.  before  it,  §  38.  2.  note.  Lengerke  suggests,  that  before 
"P72X  (Part.  pi.  indef.  and  so  passive)  the  usual  l^xb  should  be  supplied 
by  the  mind  of  the  reader.  This  is  erroneous  as  to  the  Chaldee  gram 
mar  and  usage,  for  this  word  is  no  Chaldee  Inf.  (which  is  Tcaw).  If  the 
full  construction  were  expressed,  it  would  be  so  by  another  participle ; 
comp.  in  v.  27.  But  this  is  quite  unnecessary.  Doubtless  Nebuchad 
nezzar  means  to  refer  the  voice  to  the  Watcher  (v.  10),  whom  he  had 
before  seen  to  descend  from  heaven. 

(29)  And  from  men  shall  thou  be  driven  out.  and  with  the  beast  of  the  field  shall 
be  thy  dwelling ;  herbage  shall  be  given  thee  to  eat,  like  the  oxen  ;  and  seven  times 
shall  pass  over  thee,  until  thou  shalt  know  that  the  Most  High  is  ruler  over  the  king 
dom  of  men,  and  that  he  giveth  it  to  whomsoever  he  pleaseth. 

VT?"^ '  to-  they  shall  drive  out  or  expel,  and  so  the  Part,  governs  the 
Ace.  ?jb  .  In  rendering  the  Part,  (impersonal)  passively,  I  have  been 
obliged  to  forsake  tke  Heb.  mode  of  constructing  the  clause.  For  the 
rest  of  the  verse,  see  on  vs.  12 — 14. 


116  CHAP.  IV.  30,  31. 

(30)  At  that  very  moment,  the  declaration  respecting  Nebuchadnezzar  was  accom 
plished,  and  from  among  men  was  he  driven  out,  and  herbage  did  he  eat  like  the 
oxen,  and  by  the  dew  of  heaven  was  he  bathed,  until  his  hair  grew  like  [that  of]  the 
eagles,  and  his  nails  like  [those  of]  birds. 

Comp.  v.  22.  In  the  three  cases  where  3  is  here  employed  before 
nouns,  it  is  plain  that  the  preceding  noun  is  to  be  mentally  supplied,  i.  e. 
repeated,  after  it,  or  (as  twice  in  the  version)  a  pronoun  which  is  the 
representative  of  it,  is  to  be  inserted.  —  •n'nsio  designates  the  rough  coat 
of  hair  which  an  exposed  human  body  naturally  forms,  in  order  to  de 
fend  itself  against  the  elements.  In  the  implied  phrase,  the  hair  of  the 
eagles,  i?to  will  not  bear  the  same  sense,  strictly  speaking,  but  the  mean 
ing  is,  like  to  the  natural  covering  given  to  the  eagles.  The  comparison 
touches  only  the  point  of  a  natural  growth  of  covering  for  the  body. 
The  roughness  of  the  covering  may  seem,  perhaps,  to  be  an  adsignifica- 
tion  here,  inasmuch  as  it  is  compared  to  feathers.  —  ^"HBt? ,  pi.  with 
suff.,  his  nails,  viz.  of  the  fingers  and  toes,  which,  being  neglected,  grew 
to  an  extraordinary  length,  like  the  claws  of  birds.  Neither  of  these  cir 
cumstances  indicates  anything  very  unusual,  in  the  case  of  such  a  ma 
niac.  Not  unfrequent  have  been  cases,  where  madmen  have  shunned 
all  human  society,  and  betaken  themselves  to  the  haunts  and  to  the  food 
of  wild  beasts.  The  wild  men  that  have  been  caught,  at  one  time  and 
another,  show  what  our  bodily  nature  is  capable  of  bearing,  and  how  it 
may  be  supported.  In  a  climate  so  excessively  warm  as  that  of  Baby 
lonia,  there  was  no  great  danger  to  life  from  mere  exposure  to  the  air. 
And  as  to  nutriment,  there  can  be  no  question  but  wild  fruits  and  herbage 
would  supply  it.  To  the  many  objections  made  against  this  whole  ac 
count,  some  reply  will  be  made  at  the  close  of  the  chapter. 

(31 )  And  at  the  end  of  the  days,  I  Nebuchadnezzar  lifted  np  mine  eyes  to  heaven, 
and  my  understanding  returned  to  me,  and  I  blessed  the  most  High,  and  Him  who 
liveth  forever  I  praised  and  glorified ;  for  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion, 
and  his  kingdom  to  generation  and  generation : 

End  of  the  days,  viz.  of  the  times  named  by  the  decree  of  the  Watch 
ers.  —  Lifting  up  the  eyes  to  heaven  designates  the  gesture  and  posture  of 
prayer.  —  My  understanding  returned  to  me  ;  not  to  be  regarded,  how 
ever,  as  subsequent  in  point  of  time  to  the  prayer,  for  how  could  he  pray 
without  any  understanding  ?  It  is  merely  a  sequency  in  the  narration 
explaining  and  expanding  the  preceding  clause ;  and  such  a  sequency 
cannot  be  avoided  in  a  narration,  which  can  communicate  only  one  thing 
at  a  time.  —  I  blessed  the  most  High,  recounts  part  of  the  address  to  Hea 
ven  ;  x^sb  Ace.  governed  by  ro^a ,  which  is  in  Pael,  a  because  of  the 
following  n .  —  inb ,  the  Ace.  governed  by  nnaui ;  the  latter  is  in  Pael, 


CHAP.  IV.  32,  33.  117 


as  also  fi'n'nin  .  —  tb$  "ja^ttJ  ,  lit.  dominion  of  eternity.  —  Tn  dS  ,  lit. 
generation  ;  but  as  dS  marks  iwVA  in  the  sense  of  contemporaneous,  (see 
on  3:  33),  I  have  given  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  in  a  manner  that 
accords  with  our  English  idiom. 

(32)  And  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  are  counted  as  nothing;  and  he  doeth 
according  to  his  own  pleasure  in  the  army  of  the  heavens,  and  [among]  the  inhabi 
tants  of  the  earth;  and  there  is  none  that  can  stay  his  hand,  or  say  to  him:  What 
doest  thou  ? 

"nyfl,  see  on  2:  38.  —  -nb2=  xba,  which  stands  in  the  margin,  and 
means  as  nothing,  lit.  as  not.  —  "p^irn  ,  reckoned,  counted,  in  Heb.  and 
Chaldee  usage  often  equivalent  to  are.  —  msxs  ,  Inf.  Peal,  of  «as  ,  with 
a  suff.  after  the  manner  of  a  noun,  §  16.  2.  c.  —  ™  Part.,  which  is  spe 
cially  adapted  to  express  continued  or  repeated  action.  —  Army  of  the 
heavens,  in  the  mouth  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  was  probably  meant  to  com 
prise  both  the  heavenly  bodies  and  the  spiritual  beings  supposed  to  pre 
side  over  and  govern  them.  The  star-worship  of  the  East  generally 
retained  this  feature  of  Parsism.  —  Stay  his  hand,  lit.  smite  his  hand,  \.  e. 
by  a  blow  to  avert  the  direction  of  the  hand,  and  prevent  its  hitting  the 
mark  intended.  This  expression,  borrowed  from  literal  action  in  the 
first  place,  passed  over  afterwards  into  the  figurative  sense  given  in  the 
translation.  —  The  whole  verse  stands  connected  with  what  was  uttered 
in  Nebuchadnezzar's  prayer  (as  given  above),  and  is  a  description  of 
the  power  and  irresistible  dominion  of  the  Most  High,  which  is  here 
continued,  but  which  has  its  commencement  in  v.  31. 

Lengerke,  in  order  to  show  that  the  proclamation  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
is  only  a  figment  of  some  late  author,  and  not  a  matter  of  fact,  asserts 
that  the  verse  before  us  is  evidently  copied  from  Isa.  40:  17.  24:  19.  I 
can  only  say,  that  if  the  reader  can  find  anything  more  than  a  similarity 
of  ideas  as  to  two  or  three  particulars,  he  must  be  more  sharp-sighted 
than  I  can  claim  to  be.  That  either  of  the  passages  is  a  copy  of  the 
other,  or  a  designed  imitation  of  it,  does  not  seem  to  my  mind  at  all  pro 
bable  ;  for  the  minuter  characteristic  shades  of  expression  are  clearly 
diverse.  What  can  be  more  easy  and  natural,  than  that  the  same  clear 
conviction  and  deep  impression  of  certain  great  and  plain  truths,  should 
be  uttered  by  different  persons,  in  language  that  discloses  some  general 
points  of  similarity  ? 

(33)  At  the  same  time,  my  understanding  returned  to  me;  and.  for  the  honor  of 
my  royal  dignity,  my  glory  and  my  splendor  returned  to  me,  and  me  did  my  privy- 
councillors  and  my  nobles  seek,  and  over  my  kingdom  was  I  placed,  and  much  power 
was  added  to  me. 


Mt  &a,  §43.6.5.  —  mrn,  simple  Fut.  Peal,  and  yet  necessarily 


118  CHAP.  IV.  33. 

translated  as  a  simple  Preterite.  Of  this  I  find  no  notice,  either  in  the 
Chaldee  Grammar  of  Winer,  or  in  any  of  the  commentators.  In  §  44. 
3,  seq.  Winer  assigns  five  different  shades  of  meaning  to  the  Fut.,  but 
the  one  before  us  belongs  to  neither  of  these.  Yet  this  same  Future 
form  is  repeated  again,  in  this  same  verse,  and  often  elsewhere,  as  has 
before  been  noticed.  We  cannot  rank  it  here  under  a  like  category 
with  the  Heb.  Fut.,  which  is  used  to  designate  things  habitually  done,  or 
often  repeated;  for  the  return  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  understanding  cannot 
well  be  placed  on  this  footing,  unless  indeed  it  be  maintained  that,  in 
his  case  a  gradual  restoration  of  intellect  and  honor  took  place.  This 
is  very  possible  in  itself,  but  the  connection  here  makes  against  it.  It 
is  more  probable,  that  at  the  end  of  the  days  Nebuchadnezzar  was  com 
pletely  restored  to  his  reason  and  his  office.  The  secret  of  such  a  usage 
of  the  Fut.,  in  this  case,  lies  perhaps  in  awpt  fia ;  for  in  Heb.,  after  par 
ticles  of  time,  the  Fut.  designates  the  past,  com  p.  Roed.  Heb.  Gramm. 
§  125.  4.  a,  comp.  c  ib.  Our  text  seems,  in  regard  to  this,  to  Hebraize. 
—  "^?.  »  t°  me>  ^?  in  Chald.  very  often  is  the  same  as  btt ,  see  Lex.  —  In 
arranging  and  translating  the  next  clause,  there  is  much  division  of  opin 
ion  among  critics.  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Lengerke,  Maurer,  thus :  To  the 
honor  of  my  kingdom,  of  my  glory,  and  of  my  splendor  it  [my  reason]  re 
turned  to  me.  Ha vernick  divides  the  clause  at  the  end  of  the  word  glory, 
and  then  throws  the  sequel  into  another  clause,  thus  :  And  my  splendor 
returned  to  me.  This  last  method  is  against  the  accents,  which  connect 
together  ^n  ^tr.  Leng.  asserts  (p.  200),  that  the  accents  favor  his 
method  of  arrangement ;  in  which  he  doubtless  refers  to  the  Pashta  on 
^pt ;  but  this  is  a  mere  attendant  upon  the  Zaqueph  Qdtdn  that  follows 
( "*??.  )?  and  wiM  not  at  aM  prove  that  my  glory  and  my  splendor  are  to  be 
regarded  as  Genitives  in  apposition  with  ^rflsba .  In  fact  the  contrary 
of  this  is  true ;  for  when  a  clause  with  four  words  terminates  with  a 
Zaqeph  Qaton  (-),  the  accents  are  arranged  just  as  here  in  iBs  .  .  . 
Wrt ,  see  Nordheim.  Heb.  Gramm.  p.  388.  d.  I  have  therefore  trans 
lated  as  above,  in  the  same  way  as  Rosenmiiller.  To  make  mine  under 
standing  an  implied  Nom.  to  the  second  3*1  rp ,  not  only  exhibits  a  useless 
repetition  of  this  verb  (for  the  same  thing  has  already  been  twice  said, 
vs.  31,  33),  but  mars  the  sense,  at  least  in  part.  Nebuchadnezzar  means 
simply  to  say,  that  first  of  all  his  reason  returned,  and  then  returned 
with  it  all  his  former  regal  splendor.  The  second  aw1]  has  for  its  Nom. 
the  proximate  preceding  noun  ;  a  construction  common  to  most  languages, 
and  especially  to  the  Semitic.  —  ^ ,  and  me,  Ace.,  differing  from  ibs 
which  twice  precedes ;  placed  first  in  the  clause  for  the  sake  of  peculiar 
emphasis.  —  T^1?  5  Fut.  Pael  of  atsa ,  3  because  the  Daghesh  is  excluded 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  IV.  119 

from  the  » .  There  is  no  need  of  the  marginal  •py^ ,  which  substitutes 
Peal  for  Pael.  As  for  the  accent  on  the  ultimate  here,  see  p.  25  in  the 
Note.  —  ropnn,  Hoph.  of  *}]?n,  instead  of  the  Chald.  Ithpael,  §  12.  6,  p. 
50;  the  final  na  — ,  instead  of  the  normal  na  — ,  is  common  in  Guttural 
verbs  ;  p.  53.  n.  3  (at  bottom)  gives  an  analogy,  and  so  on  p.  49.  2  (ad  fin.). 
Gutturals  and  Liquids  not  unfrequently  take  Pattah  final,  in  the  3d  fern., 
and  in  the  first  person  ;  although  the  Grammar  has  not  distinctly  recog 
nized  this.  —  *Q1  for  r^Sl ,  I  have  translated  power,  because  one  mean 
ing  of  mi  is, potensfuit.  Amplitude  would  be  more  literal;  but  it  fails 
to  designate  the  respect  in  which  there  was  an  augmentation.  —  ps>enn , 
Hoph.  again  of  C]O^ ,  p.  50.  6.  Here  the  third  pers.  sing,  has  its  regular 
ending  in  Pattah.  The  reading  o  instead  of  the  regular  & ,  is  only  for 
the  sake  of  distinctness.  The  difficulties  which  recent  criticism  has  found 
in  the  declarations  or  assertions  of  this  verse,  will  be  noticed  in  the  sequel. 

(34)  Now  I  Nebuchadnezzar  highly  praise  and  exalt  and  glorify  the  king  of  the 
heavens,  all  of  whose  doings  are  truth,  and  whose  ways  are  justice  ;  and  those  who 
walk  haughtily,  he  is  able  to  humble. 

The  three  Part,  are  in  Pael,  Polel  (§  14.  2),  and  again  in  Pael,  all  in 
tensive,  and  so  translated.  —  7^^ ,  Ace.  —  inrnsE ,  plur.  with  suff.  — 
tiiiap ,  truth,  i.  e.  without  deceit  or  falsehood  ;  and  so  "p1? ,  justice,  i.  e. 
just,  or  in  accordance  with  justice  ;  both  phrases  are  like  God  is  love,  i.  e. 
abstract  for  concrete.  —  firnix ,  pi.  fern,  form,  having  a  suffix ;  ways 
means  proceedings,  doings,  actions,  which  use  of  the  word  is  very  com 
mon  in  Heb.  and  Chaldee.  —  b=£,  Part.,  for  form  see  §  12.  1.  1.  c. 

[EXCURSUS.  —  Objections  to  a  chapter  like  the  preceding,  we  might 
naturally  expect,  from  the  fashionable  criticism  of  the  day.  A  considerable 
host  of  them  have  been  mustered  into  the  service,  by  many  agents.  I  shall 
notice  only  such  as  seem  to  deserve  serious  consideration. 

(l)  It  is  alleged,  that  'the  publication  of  such  a  decree  by  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  a  decree  which  holds  him  up  to  the  contempt  of  his  subjects  and  to 
disgrace,  is  an  utter  improbability.'  Lengerke  (p.  151)  is  so  confident  of 
this,  that  he  expresses  disapprobation  of  Bertholdt,  Bleek,  and  Kirms,  for 
conceding  that  Abydenus,  who  relates  a  story  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  mad 
ness,  had  any  even  fleeting  rumors  of  this  kind  to  build  upon.  The  whole, 
he  thinks,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  pure  fiction. 

What  particular  inducement  there  was  for  Abydenus  to  invent  such  a 
fiction  de  nova,  he  does  not  tell  us.  It  is  easy  to  see,  that  tradition,  when 
it  reached  Abydenus,  (who  not  improbably  lived  in  the  second  century 
B.  C.),  might  have  added  some  circumstances  to  the  story,  in  order  to  make 
it  the  more  wonderful,  and  that  Abydenus  himself,  (no  very  skilful  or  criti 
cal  writer),  may  have  helped  to  adorn  it.  But  the  simple  categorical  asser 
tion  that  he  had  no  basis  to  build  upon,  in  writing  his  account  of  Nebu 
chadnezzar's  madness  —  may  pass  for  what  it  is  worth,  with  all  'candid 
judges. 


120  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  IV. 

In  the  mean  time,  conceding  for  the  present  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
seized  with  mania,  and  recovered  from  it,  how  is  it  to  be  made  certain,  that 
he  was  not,  on  his  recovery,  in  a  state  of  mind  that  would  lead  him  to  pub 
lish  the  whole  matter  to  his  subjects,  in  order  that  they  also  might  be  led  to 
praise  "  the  king  of  heaven"  as  well  as  he  ?  If  anything  could  humble  a 
haughty  tyrant,  like  him,  what  he  had  suffered  was  well  adapted  to  do  so. 
And  if  all  that  had  come  upon  him,  had  come  in  accordance  with  the  pre 
dictions  of  Daniel,  the  impression  made  on  a  highly  susceptible  mind,  like 
his,  must  needs  be  very  strong.  The  first  thing  to  which  all  strong  emotions 
of  penitence  lead,  is  ample  confession  of  sin.  Who  can  show  us  that  Ne 
buchadnezzar  did  not  now  become  truly  penitent  ?  But  be  that  as  it  may, 
he  may  well  be  supposed  to  have  felt  deep  regret  for  his  pride  and  haughti 
ness,  and  a  strong  sense  of  humiliation.  In  this  state,  I  know  of  no  way 
in  which  a  man  of  powerful  emotions,  like  him,  can  be  shown  to  be  incapa 
ble  of  acknowledging  his  offences  and  deploring  his  folly.  Taking  the 
statement  of  his  whole  demeanor  together,  the  writer  of  the  book  may  be 
well  acquitted  of  any  incongruity  in  his  account  of  these  matters.  He  pre 
sents  Nebuchadnezzar  as  So  humbled,  and  so  affected  by  the  discipline  that 
he  had  received,  as  to  seek  the  opportunity  of  publishing  to  the  world  his 
bitter  experience,  and  his  acknowledgments  of  gratitude  for  restoration. 
A  state  of  mind  like  this  leaves  no  room  for  selfish  and  honor-saving  devices, 
which,  as  many  critics  allege,  must  have  prevented  his  making  such  a  pro 
clamation  as  is  contained  in  chapter  iv.  But  do  not  these  critics  draw  con 
clusions  rather  from  what  they  themselves  would  do  or  be  likely  to  do  in 
such  circumstances,  or  from  what  Nebuchadnezzar  would  have  done  in  the 
height  of  his  prosperity  and  his  haughtiness,  than  from  what  Nebuchadnez 
zar  as  a  disciplined,  sobered,  humbled,  and  penitent  man  would  do  ?  In  a 
word,  if  Nebuchadnezzar  was  humbled,  (and  it  would  seem  that  he  had 
suffered  enough  to  humble  him),  he  was,  judging  from  all  the  characteristics 
of  him  that  we  can  collect,  and  especially  from  the  ardor  and  intensity  of 
his  emotions,  very  likely  to  do  such  a  thing  as  the  one  in  question.  No 
thing  is  more  common  than  for  such  men  to  go  from  one  extreme  to  the 
other. 

I  crave  the  liberty  of  making  one  more  remark.  The  reader  of  the 
book  before  us,  who  acknowledges  an  overruling  and  a  merciful  Providence, 
will  not  fail  to  see,  that  such  a  proclamation  as  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
coming  from  the  renowned  hero  and  conqueror  who  had  advanced  his 
country  to  the  highest  pinnacle  of  dominion  and  fame,  would  have  a  very 
important  influence  on  the  minds  of  the  Babylonians,  and  lead  them  to  treat 
the  Hebrew  exiles  among  them  with  more  than  usual  respect  and  lenity. 
The  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel  may  have  had  higher  ends  and  nobler 
objects  in  view,  than  some  of  the  critics  have  attributed  to  him. 

Thus  much  as  to  the  fact  of  publishing  such  an  ExJtosL  The  next  step, 
on  the  part  of  objectors  is,  to  deny  the  historical  probability  of  the  circum 
stances  stated.  '  His  madness,'  they  say,  '  for  so  long  a  period,  although 
possible,  is  utterly  improbable,  because  no  writer  mentions  anything  of  it, 
except  the  author  of  Daniel.  Who  can  believe  that  so  extraordinary  a 
thing,  and  one  which  must  have  put  at  peril  all  the  great  interests  of  the 
kingdom,  would  have  been  passed  by,  in  giving  the  history  of  this  king  ? 
The  whole  affair,  therefore,  wears  the  air  of  fiction  and  not  of  fact/ 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  IV.  121 

Taking  these  assertions  as  founded  in  truth,  in  regard  to  the  absence  else 
where  of  any  account  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  mania,  and  comparing  this  with 
our  modern  method  of  writing  history  and  biography,  there  seems  to  be  at 
least  an  appearance  of  something  formidable  in  it,  with  respect  to  the  credit 
of  the  book  before  us.  But  he  who  is  familiar  with  the  fragments  of  early 
oriental  history  that  remain,  will  be  slow  to  set  up  such  a  standard  of 
judging.  The  argumentum  a  silentio  is  one  of  the  most  treacherous  of  all 
that  encumber  the  logic  of  history.  For  example  ;  it  is  very  easy  for  us  to 
ask  :  How,  in  writing  Solomon's  life,  could  his  excessive  polygamy  and  sen 
suality,  his  idolatry,  and  finally  his  danger  arising  from  the  aggressions  of 
numerous  and  powerful  enemies,  near  the  close  of  his  life,  be  passed  over  ? 
And  yet  the  writer  of  the  Chronicles  has  not  even  mentioned  one  of  these 
circumstances.  In  a  life  of  David,  how  could  his  adultery  and  murder  be 
passed  by  ?  Yet  the  same  author  has  not  even  adverted  to  them.  And  if 
we  go  to  the  N.  Test.,  it  is  easy  to  raise  like  questions  there.  How  could 
such  miracles  as  that  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  or  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
from  the  dead,  be  passed  over  in  silence  by  three  of  the  Evangelists  V  And 
because  they  are  so,  is  that  enough  to  convict  John  of  writing  mere  ro 
mance  ? 

Who,  moreover,  are  they  that  have  undertaken  to  write  the  history  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  later  life  ?  The  scriptural  histories  give  us  only  the  for 
mer  part  of  his  long  reign,  and  cease  with  that.  The  prophets  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel  ceased  to  write,  and  in  fact  were  dead,  before  the  close  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  reign,  and  of  course  have  left  us  nothing  concerning  it. 
The  Grecian  writers,  even  Herodotus  himself  who  speaks  so  much  of  Baby 
lon,  say  nothing  of  Nebuchadnezzar;  and  indeed,  how  little  dependence 
can  be  placed  on  any  history  of  the  remote  East  by  the  Grecian  writers  of 
a  late  age,  seems  now  to  be  generally  understood  and  acknowledged.  Jo- 
sephus  (Antiqq.)  and  Eusebius  (Chron.),  who  have  industriously  brought 
together  all  they  could  find  respecting  Nebuchadnezzar,  have  mentioned 
only  six  writings  which  recognize  him.  (1)  The  Phenician  Annals ;  which 
merely  mention  his  attack  on  Phenicia.  (2)  The  Phenician  History  of 
Philostrates,  which  merely  mentions  his  besieging  Tyre.  (3)  Megasthenes 
(flor.  c.  280  B.  C.),  who  in  his  History  of  India,  mentions  the  overrunning 
of  Libya  and  Iberia  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  (which  is  probably  an  error). 
(4)  Diocles,  in  his  Persian  History,  makes  a  merely  casual  mention  of  him, 
(Jos.  Antiq.  X.  11.  Cont.  Ap.  I.  21.).  We  are  reduced  then  to  two  histori 
ans,  Berosus  and  Abydenus,  who  both  drew  from  Chaldee  annals  or  tradi 
tion.  Of  these  we  have,  indeed,  only  a  few  remnants ;  but  we  seem  to  have 
all  which  they  wrote  respecting  Nebuchadnezzar.  In  Berosus,  the  whole 
account  does  not  amount  to  two  pages  12mo  ;  and  about  half  of  this  is  oc 
cupied  with  an  account  of  the  structures  which  Nebuchadnezzar  reared  at 
Babylon ;  see  Kichter's  Berosus,  p.  65  seq.  In  such  a  mere  table  of  con 
tents,  or  skeleton-sketch,  of  a  reign  of  more  than  forty  years,  and  of  the 
conquest  of  all  hither  Asm,  how  could  it  be  expected  that  a  writer  would 
give  a  detail  of  private  personal  infirmities  ?  Suppose,  for  example,  some 
three  centuries  hence,  a  writer  should  undertake  to  give  the  history  of 
George  the  third,  and  of  his  doings  in  England  during  a  long  and  most 
eventful  reign.  If  confined  to  a  pag",  and  a  half,  would  he  be  likely  to  tell 
the  story  of  this  king's  mania,  and  the  particulars  of  the  interim  Regency  ? 

11 


122  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  IV. 

And  if  he  omitted  these,  would  it  be  any  proof  that  there  was  neither  mania 
nor  regency  ?  Besides,  Berosus  not  improbably  had  other  feelings  toward 
the  Babylonish  heroes,  than  such  as  would  lead  him  to  dwell  on  particulars 
like  the  one  in  question.  How  comes  it,  that  Manetho,  and  the  Greek  wri 
ters  who  have  followed  him,  while  they  celebrate  the  victory  of  Pharaoh 
Necho  over  the  Syrians,  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  say  not  a  word  of  his  defeat 
at  Carchemish  ?  It  is  plain,  that  Manetho  did  not  wish  to  wither  the  lau 
rels  of  his  conqueror ;  and  so  he  has  refrained  from  the  latter  part  of  the 
story.  And  do  the  Persian  histories  recognize  the  defeats  of  Xerxes  by 
the  Grecians,  and  that  of  Darius  by  Alexander  in  Asia  ?  Such  things  are 
too  common  among  ancient  historians,  to  excite  any  surprise  on  the  part  of 
him  who  is  conversant  with  them. 

As  to  Abydenus,  what  we  have  of  him  is  still  less  than  the  remains  of  Be 
rosus.  And  yet,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  there  is  something  in  what  little  he 
does  say,  that  deserves  our  particular  examination.  In  Euseb.  Praep. 
Evang.  IX.  41,  is  a  quotation  from  him,  the  amount  of  which  is,  that  just 
before  his  death,  Nebuchadnezzar,  ascending  his  palace,  was  seized  with  a 
divine  afflatus,  uttered  certain  gloomy  predictions  concerning  Babylon,  in 
respect  to  the  future,  and  then  suddenly  disappeared.*  The  last  part  of 
this  passage  has  a  singular  air,  and  seems  to  be  a  kind  of  popular  version 
of  the  story  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  madness,  as  told  in  his  proclamation.  But 
along  with  this,  there  is  seemingly  an  evident  attempt  to  cover  the  disgrace 
of  that  mania,  by  converting  it  into  a  furor  propheticus.  Daniel  has  pre 
dicted  (7:  5)  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Medo- Persian  dominion,  and  its  all- 
devouring  nature  ;  and  Nebuchadnezzar  himself,  in  his  dream  of  the  colos 
sal  image,  had  a  view  of  the  same,  2:  39.  By  mixing  this  with  what  is  said 
of  his  madness,  and  giving  to  Nebuchadnezzar  himself  a  prophetic  afflatus, 
(which  not  unnaturally  connected  itself  with  his  foreboding  dreams),  the 
whole  paragraph  of  Abydenus  seems  to  be  made  up.  I  should  not  suspect 
him  of  having  seen  the  book  of  Daniel ;  but  that  the  traditions  from  which 
he  drew,  had  been  formed  among  the  populace,  and  partly  modified  by 
that  book,  or  at  least  by  popular  rumor  according  in  some  good  measure 
with  it,  among  the  Hebrews  in  exile,  one  can  hardly  see  good  reason  to 


*  The  passage  is  so  singular,  that  I  deem  it  expedient  to  present  a  translation  of 
it  to  the  reader,  that  he  may  judge  for  himself.  Abydenus  first  quotes  Megasthenes 
as  an  authority,  in  regard  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  conquest  of  Lybia  and  Iberia.  He 
then  proceeds  to  relate  the  further  tradition  of  the  Chaldeans  respecting  him  r  "  After 
these  things  [the  conquests  above  named],  as  it  is  said  by  the  Chaldeans,  having  as 
cended  his  palace,  he  was  seized  by  some  god,  and  speaking  aloud  he  said :  '  I  Ne 
buchadnezzar,  O  Babylonians,  foretel  your  future  calamity,  which  neither  Belus  my 
ancestor,  nor  queen  Belis,  can  persuade  the  Destinies  to  avert.  A  Persian  mule  will 
come,  employing  your  own  divinities  as  his  auxiliaries;  and  he  will  impose  servitude 
[upon  you].  His  coadjutor  will  be  the  Mede,  who  is  the  boast  of  the  Assyrians. 
Would  that,  before  he  places  my  citizens  in  such  a  condition,  some  Charybdis  or  gulf 
might  swallow  him  up  with  utter  destruction  !  Or  that,  turned  in  a  different  direc 
tion,  he  might  roam  in  the  desert,  (where  are  neither  cities,  nor  footsteps  of  man,  but 
wild  beasts  find  pasturage,  and  the  birds  wander),  being  there  hemmed  in  by  rocks 
and  ravines  !  May  it  be  my  lot  to  attain  to  a  better  end,  before  such  things  come 
into  his  mind !'  Having  uttered  this  prediction,  he  forthwith  disappeared." 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  IV.  123 

doubt.  How  came  tradition  to  assign  such  a  prediction,  concerning  the 
Persian  mule,  to  Nebuchadnezzar  ?  In  his  life  time,  the  Persians  were  not 
known  as  anything  more  than  a  mere  clan  of  a  province.  There  must  have 
been  something  to  originate  such  a  unique  prediction,  in  the  minds  of  the 
Chaldees.  I  can  think  of  nothing  more  likely  to  do  so,  than  a  cursory  and 
hasty  reading  of  the  book  of  Daniel  among  them,  or  at  least  a  Hebrew  tra 
dition  such  as  has  been  before  named.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  the  main 
subject,  for  he  was  the  object  of  the  national  boasting  and  glory  ;  the 
things,  which  are  described  in  Dan.  iv.  as  about  to  come  on  him,  he  is  made  to 
shift  from  himself,  and  to  desire  that  they  may  be  put  upon  the  Persian  mule. 
Finally  he  vanishes  from  the  sight  of  men,  in  a  manner  like  to  that  in  which 
he  disappears,  when  struck  with  madness.  Abydenus  may  be  quite  honest 
in  relating  all  this,  (and  I  see  not  why  we  should  doubt  of  it),  and  yet  the 
popular  rumor  which  he  copied,  may  have  been,  and  evidently  was,  a  con 
fused  and  heterogeneous  mixture.  It  was  difficult  to  reconcile  the  account 
of  Daniel  with  the  glorification  of  the  renowned  hero.  Hence  such  an 
amalgamation  of  rumors,  as  would  save  the  credit  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  for 
a  divine  afflatus  and  a  sudden  disappearance  were  considered  by  most  hea 
then,  as  marked  tokens  of  the  good  pleasure  of  the  godhead.  The  least  that 
we  can  now  make  of  all  this  is,  that  in  Abydenus'  time  there  was  still, 
among  the  Chaldees,  a  tradition  about  something  extraordinary  and  pecu 
liar  in  the  closing  part  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  life.  At  all  events,  the  account 
in  Daniel  is  by  far  the  most  rational,  sober,  and  credible.  Indeed  the  other 
is  little  short  of  a  mere  monstrosity  ;  and  no  one  will  for  a  moment  deem  it 
credible,  in  the  shape  in  which  it  is  presented  to  us  by  Abydenus.  There 
are,  however,  with  all  the  incongruities,  some  striking  coincidences  between 
Abydenus  and  Daniel.  Both  represent  the  extraordinary  event,  whatever 
it  was,  as  occurring  after  the  close  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  conquests,  and  near 
the  close  of  life.  Both  present  the  thing  as  happening,  while  Nebuchad 
nezzar  was  on  the  top  of  his  palace.  According  to  the  Greek  text  as 
amended  by  Scaliger,  (and  now  confirmed  by  the  Armenian  Version  of 
Eusebius'  Chronicon),  Nebuchadnezzar  is  said  to  be  seized  #fw  OKM  di],  by 
some  divinity ;  which,  in  the  mouth  of  Chaldees,  can  scarcely  mean  anything 
else  than  some  foreign  god.  What  then  can  be  the  import  of  this,  unless 
there  is  mingled  with  it  some  of  the  elements  contained  in  Dan.  iv.  ?  Dis 
figured  these  elements  are,  by  the  inaccuracy  of  traditionary  report,  and  by 
the  spirit  of  hero-worship  which  pervaded  the  Babylonians.  But  after  all, 
the  impression  is  inevitably  made  by  Abydenus,  that  according  to  Chaldee 
tradition,  Nebuchadnezzar  ended  his  life  in  some  unusual  or  extraordinary 
manner. 

But  what  says  Berosus  in  respect  to  this  ?  He  says  (in  his  third  book, 
cont.  Apion.  I.  20),  that  "Nebuchadnezzar,  after  beginning  the  aforemen 
tioned  wall,  iprieaMv  tlq  ir,v  otQqbwilav,  falling  into  a  sickness,  departed  this 
life,  after  reigning  forty-three  years."  '  But  is  there  anything  uncommon 
in  this  '?'  is  the  question  which  we  are  called  upon  at  once  to  answer.  '  Do  not 
men  usually  sicken  before  they  die  ?  Why  should  we  consider  this  as  any 
thing  special  ?'  For  the  very  reason,  I  answer,  that  sickness  is  so  common 
before  death  as  not  to  need  being  mentioned;  and  therefore  the  particular 
mention  of  it  is  adapted  to  awaken  a  suspicion,  that  something  special  is 
meant  by  a  specification  of  this  nature.  Of  Neriglossar  and  Nabonned, 


124  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  IV. 

both  successors  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  who,  according  to  Berosus,  both  died  a 
natural  death,  nothing  is  said  in  respect  to  their  falling  sick. 

'  But  does  not  Berosus  say  the  same  thing  (in  regard  to  sickness),  of  Ne 
buchadnezzar's  father  Nabopolassar  ?'  '  And  as  nothing  special  is  to  be 
made  out  of  the  latter  case,  why  should  we  attempt  to  make  out  anything 
special  in  the  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar  himself?' 

This  statement,  however,  as  it  seems  to  my  mind,  is  not  altogether  cor 
rect.  There  is  a  special  reason  why  the  sickness  of  Nabopolassar  is  men 
tioned.  Berosus  first  states,  that  the  king  had  intelligence  that  his  Satrap 
in  Western  Asia  had  revolted,  and  ov  dvvnpfvoc  uvrog  m  xaxo7r«#*ti',  being 
unable  himself  any  longer  to  undergo  hardships,  he  sent  his  son  to  subdue 
the  revolters.  While  Nebuchadnezzar  was  engaged  in  this  mission,  "it 
.happened  to  Nabopolassar  his  father,  who  was  sick  at  this  time  (x«i«  TOVTOV 
TOV  MXIQOV  (XQywffTijffavTi),  to  die  at  Babylon."  Now  the  obvious  reason 
of  mentioning  his  infirm  state  here,  is  to  show  why  he  sent  his  son 
with  his  army,  instead  of  heading  it  himself.  His  death  is  afterwards 
connected  with  this  sickness,  in  order  to  show,  that  he  continued  infirm 
during  the  expedition  led  by  his  son,  until  the  time  of  his  death.  Of  course, 
the  mere  ordinary  idea  of  a  sickness  which  precedes  death,  is  not  the  one 
which  the  writer  aims  to  communicate  ;  and  if  something  special  in  this 
case  is  denoted,  by  the  mention  of  the  sickness,  we  may  well  suppose  that 
something  special  in  the  second  case  is  meant.  But  what  is  it?  It  is  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  had  begun  a  wall  of  some  kind,  the  completion  of  which 
was  interrupted  by  his  falling  sick,  ^mf<jMV  ftc  u^Mintav.  Lengerke  makes 
light  of  this  mode  of  expression,  and  thinks  that  Hengstenberg  mistakes  the 
nature  of  the  Greek  idiom,  when  he  attributes  more  to  it,  than  to  the  simple 
uQyoHTDidwvti  employed  to  describe  the  condition  of  Nabopolassar.  Most 
clearly  Hengstenberg  is  substantially  in  the  right ;  for  at  least  it  carries 
with  it  the  accessory  idea  of  being  suddenly  invaded  by  sickness,  which  the 
other  (the  latter)  does  not.  What  this  sickness  was,  Berosus  does  not  say ; 
nor  could  we  expect  him  to  do  so.  But  independently  of  this,  his  mode  of 
expression  conveys  at  least  the  idea  of  a  sudden  and  unexpected  sickness. 
Our  text  affords  an  ample  explanation  of  the  matter. 

4  But  the  two  cases  are  not  alike  ;  nay  they  arc  directly  opposed  to  each 
other.  Daniel  says  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  stricken  with  mania ;  and 
that  he  recovered  both  his  health  and  station  ;  Berosus,  that  he  died  of  his 
sickness  ;  and  even  Abydenus,  that  he  suddenly  disappeared  in  his  ecstasy. 
Here  then  is  contradiction,  not  confirmation' 

So  Lengerke,  p.  146  seq.  But  as  to  Abydenus,  this  part  of  his  account 
is  too  plainly  fabulous  to  support  an  objection.  The  single  clause  of  Bero 
sus,  in  which  he  tells  the  story,  seems  indeed  to  connect  the  sickness  with 
the  death  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  no  limitation  of  time  is  made,  in  re 
spect  to  the  duration  of  the  sickness.  No  particulars  whatever  are  given. 
In  the  absence  of  everything  of  this  nature,  we  cannot  well  make  out  from 
Berosus  a  contradiction  of  Daniel.  Do  the  books  of  the  Chronicles  contra 
dict  those  of  the  kings,  because  they  omit  any  account  of  the  failings  and 
sins  of  David  and  Solomon  ?  A  spirit  of  liberal  criticism  will  hardly  ven 
ture  upon  such  a  position.  If  now,  as  seems  quite  probable,  Nebuchad 
nezzar  died  very  soon  after  his  restoration,  then  there  were  no  special 
political  achievements  of  his  to  be  recorded  by  the  Chaldee  historian.  At 


OF    T 

UFI7ERSI 

EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  IV. 


all  events  there  appears  to  be  no  contradiction  between  him  and  Daniel, 
when  the  nature  of  the  case  is  fully  considered.  The  one  gives  a  mere 
general  statement,  in  the  briefest  manner  practicable  ;  the  other  goes  into 
particulars. 

'  But  seven  years  of  madness !  And  during  all  this  time  no  revolution  of 
government,  and  no  other  king  placed  on  the  throne !  How  is  all  this  to 
be  rendered  probable  ?' 

As  to  the  length  of  time,  commentators  seem  to  have  been  somewhat  per 
plexed  by  it.  Calvin  thinks  that  seven  is  here  an  indefinite  number,  em 
ployed  to  denote  a  considerable  period.  So  Hengstenberg  (Authentic,  s. 
113)  ;  who  also  intimates,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  consider  times  as  denot 
ing  years.  Havernick  has  gone  further,  and  maintains  that  these  times 
were  astrological  periods.  But  the  idiom  of  the  book  (see  7:  25.  12:  7), 
seems  to  forbid  this.  I  do  not  think  that  we  can  fairly  shun  the  conclusion 
that  years  are  meant.  But  then  a  seven  years'  madness  is  no  uncommon 
occurrence,  and  therefore  presents  no  difficulty.  But  we  are  called  upon 
to  show  how  the  kingdom  was  managed,  without  another  king.  And  this 
question  we  may  answer  by  saying,  that  it  was  probably  managed  just  as  it 
was  after  the  death  of  Nabopolassar,  during  the  expedition  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar  to  western  Asia,  i.  e.  by  the  Magi,  and  in  particular  by  the  head  of 
this  order,  who  seems  to  have  been  officially  a  kind  of  viceroy,  in  case  of  an 
exigency.  So  Berosus  expressly  represents  the  matter,  when  he  speaks  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  return  to  his  capital.  On  this  occasion  he  says,  that 
"he  took  upon  himself  the  affairs  which  had  been  managed  by  the  Chal- 
dees  [Magi],  and  the  royal  authority  which  had  been  preserved  for  him  by 
their  chief"  (Jos.  Antiq.  X.  11.  l).  So  when  the  Medes  and  Babylonians 
combine  to  destroy  Nineveh,  the  chief  priest  of  the  Magi,  Belesis,  is  pre 
sented  as  the  leader  and  prince  of  the  Chaldeans;  Diod.  Sic.  II.  More 
over  as  Hengstenberg  remarks,  the  nobles  may  have  had  many  reasons  for 
continuing  a  regency  in  this  way,  as  it  put  great  power  into  their  hands 
without  subjecting  them  to  danger  from  the  exercise  of  it.  That  Nebu 
chadnezzar  was  a  thorough  disciplinarian,  and  well  understood  order  and 
subordination,  the  extent  of  his  conquests  and  the  durability  of  his  power 
would  seem  to  show.  His  affairs,  therefore,  might  have  gone  on  as  usual, 
with  but  little  trouble.  The  case  before  us,  then,  in  respect  to  the  inter 
regnum,  presents  no  very  serious  difficulty. 

'  But  if  Nebuchadnezzar  ran  wild  at  large,  with  the  beasts,  how  could  his 
nobles  seek  after  him,  and  where  would  they  go  to  find  him  ?  How,  more 
over,  should  they  know  when  to  go  ;  or  when  his  reason  returned  ;  or  indeed 
that  it  did  at  all  return  ?' 

Questions,  as  it  seems  to  me,  of  much  less  significancy  and  difficulty,  than 
have  been  attached  to  them  by  many  of  the  recent  critics  on  the  book  of 
Daniel.  Some  of  them,  too,  depend  for  what  little  importance  they  have, 
on  a  wrongly  assumed  exegesis  of  the  text.  When  it  is  said  that  "  Nebu 
chadnezzar's  nobles  sought  for  him"  ("p^a"]),  this  phrase  is  not  to  be  under 
stood  in  the  sense  of  looking  for  something  which  is  lost ;  like  our  phrase 
to  hunt  up  or  hunt  out ;  for  when  Arioch  and  his  guard  sought  after  (tea) 
Daniel  to  kill  him  (2:  13),  he  had  neither  absconded  nor  concealed  himself. 
To  seek  after  is,  in  the  style  of  the  book  before  us,  to  make  inquiry  for  or  of. 

11* 


126  EXCURSUS  ON    CHAP.  IV. 

This  the  nobles  of  Babylon  did,  so  soon  as  they  heard  of  the  king's  resto 
ration. 

As  to  wandering  away  from  the  abodes  of  men,  and  lodging  and  feeding 
with  the  wild  beasts,  all  the  questions  that  are  raised  as  to  the  probability  or 
possibility  of  this  amount  to  little  or  nothing.  A  fierce  madman  of  this  dis 
position  would  easily  elude  the  most  thorough  vigilance,  and  make  his 
escape  ;  comp.  Mark  5:  1 — 5.  Hengstenberg,  indeed,  represents  Nebu 
chadnezzar  as  chained  the  whole  time  (see  v.  20),  and  attended  by  a 
watch-guard,  to  see  where  he  might  go,  and  to  secure  him  from  injury. 
But  our  text  conveys  to  my  own  mind  quite  a  different  impression.  The 
chain  of  v.  20  seems  to  be  applied  to  keeping  in  security  the  root-trunk  of 
the  tree,  and  so  to  preserve  it  that  a  germ  would  in  due  time  shoot  up. 
That  Nebuchadnezzar  roamed  at  large,  seems  to  lie  on  the  face  of  the  rep 
resentation  in  chap.  iv.  That  his  haunts  were  known,  and  that  some  kind 
of  watch-guard  was  placed  over  him  whose  business  it  was  to  look  to  any 
exigency  that  might  occur,  seems  highly  probable  when  we  consider  the 
rank  and  popularity  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  When  he  became  rational,  he 
would  of  course  return  to  his  home  and  his  friends.  He  needed  not  to  be 
limited  out.  It  often  happens,  that  persons  fall  into  a  mania  which  lasts 
many  years,  and  on  coming  out  of  it  suddenly,  their  consciousness  is  con 
nected  with  the  state  in  which  they  were  immediately  before  their  malady, 
and  the  intervening  period  is  entirely  lost.  In  case  of  the  king's  return,  it 
would  at  once  be  known,  not  only  where  he  was,  but  also  what  was  his  then 
present  condition. 

As  to  the  various  fantastic  representations  that  have  been  made  of  the 
description  of  Nebuchadnezzar  during  his  madness,  transmuting  him  into 
some  compound  of  an  animal  with  claws  and  feathers,  and  the  like,  it  is  un 
necessary  to  canvass  them.  Origen,  not  knowing,  as  it  would  seem,  what  to 
do  with  the  representation,  makes  it  (more  suo)  an  allegorical  representa 
tion  of  the  fall  of  Satan  ;  arid  Jerome  (Comm.  on  4:  7)  uses  the  aryumentum 
ad  hominem  against  heathen  objectors,  and  asks,  whether  the  story  is  not  as 
probable,  as  their  reports  about  Chimaeras,  Hydras,  Centaurs,  and  the  like. 
It  would  be  unreasonable  to  ask  assent  to  such  views  as  these  ;  but  we  may 
boldly  say,  that  due  allowance  being  made  for  oriental  costume  in  the  de 
scription  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  person  and  demeanor,  there  is  nothing  in 
either  beyond  the  common  bounds  of  probability.  To  draw  from  the  ex 
pression  "  his  hair  became  like  that  of  eagles,"  the  conclusion  that  he  be 
came  feathered,  would  be  following  up  the  literal  meaning  beyond  all  reason. 
The  covered  hirsute  condition  of  his  body  is  the  point  of  comparison,  and 
the  object  is  not  to  assert  that  he  became  a  feathered  animal.  Besides,  the 
word  which  we  translate  eagles  ("p^i)  is  more  generic  in  the  original,  and 
comprises  the  various  species  of  the  vulture.  The  bald  eagle,  however, 
(for  which  the  word  also  stands),  seems  to  be  the  particular  object  pointed  at 
in  the  comparison.  If  so,  no  further  defence  of  the  language  is  needed. 
Madmen  have  so  often  acted  over  scenes  like  those  here  described,  that  won 
der  at  such  a  condition  would  seem  to  betoken  ignorance  of  facts. 

Finally  it  is  urged,  that  the  whole  chapter  has  a  mere  paraenetic  or  horta 
tory  tendency  ;  and  that  in  order  to  impress  the  moral  ideas  designed  to  be 
communicated  in  this  way,  the  whole  romance  is  introduced ;  not  for  the 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  IV.  127 

purposes  of  fraud,  as  even  Lengerke  seems  willing  to  concede,  but  for  a 
purpose  like  that  which  produces  so  many  moral  romances  at  the  present 
day.  The  object  is,  as  critics  of  this  class  affirm,  to  present  the  character 
and  the  doom  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  to  encourage  the  Jews  to  per 
severe  in  their  opposition  to  that  tyrant. 

But  of  such  romances,  written  in  such  a  way  among  the  Hebrews,  we 
have  no  certain  examples.  We  have  parables  and  fables ;  but  they  are 
always  explained  by  the  context.  Such  as  we  have,  moreover,  are  very 
short,  and  of  a  very  different  tenor  from  the  present  narration.  As  to  Antio 
chus  —  what  is  there  in  his  life  to  correspond  with  the  chapter  before  us  ? 
If  he  deserved  the  name  of  madman,  it  was  by  his  vile  conduct,  and  not  be 
cause  his  intellect  was  really  supposed  to  be  deranged.  Besides,  Nebuchad 
nezzar  did  not  persecute  the  Jews  for  their  religion ;  Antiochus  did,  even 
to  the  last  extremity.  Nebuchadnezzar  repented  after  his  madness,  and 
proclaimed  his  penitence  to  the  world  ;  Antiochus  did  neither.  Both  indeed 
were  heathen  kings,  and  both  were  zealots  for  idolatry ;  but  so  were  hun 
dreds  of  other  kings,  and  there  is  no  speciality  in  this.  But  if  this  be  ex- 
cepted,  then  what  is  left  in  ch.  iv.  to  remind  any  one  of  Antiochus,  either 
as  to  his  life  or  his  death  ? 

That  the  whole  book  of  Daniel  has  a  moral  and  religious  substratum,  which 
is  ever  kept  in  view,  I  would  fully  and  most  readily  acknowledge.  It  would 
not.  be  what  we  should  expect  from  such  a  man  as  Daniel,  if  this  were  not 
the  case.  But  as  to  a  prototype  in  the  present  case  of  Antiochus,  it  needs  a 
magnifying-glass  of  peculiar  power  to  discover  it. 


CHAP.  V.     CONTENTS. 

[The  reader  of  this  book  would  make  a  great  mistake,  if  he  should  regard  it  as  de 
signed  to  give  anything  like  a  regular  history  of  the  Babylonish  kings,  or  of  the  Jew 
ish  nation,  during  the  Babylonish  exile.  Only  such  occurrences  are  noted  as  have  a 
high  religious  interest,  and  in  combination  with  this,  occasionally,  a  high  national  in 
terest  for  the  Jews.  Such  is  the  narrative  before  us.  The  Babylonish  king,  heated 
with  wine,  shows  contempt  to  the  sacred  utensils  of  the  Jewish  temple,  or  at  least  a 
haughty  exultation  in  his  possession  of  them.  He  is  admonished,  in  the  midst  of  his 
excess,  of  his  impending  and  awful  doom;  and  speedily  it  comes  upon  him.  An  im 
portant  lesson  to  blasphemous  kings  is  taught  by  this,  and  cheering  encouragement 
is  given  to  those  who  were  bowed  down  under  the  yoke  of  slavery,  and  were  insulted 
and  treated  with  scorn  in  respect  to  their  most  sacred  feelings.  The  sum  of  the  narra 
tion  is  us  follows  : 

Belshazzar  makes  a  great  feast,  and  invites  to  it  a  multitude  of  his  princes  and  po 
tentates.  In  the  midst  of,  it,  he  commands  the  vessels  of  the  Jerusalem-temple  to  be 
brought  from  the  temple  of  Belus,  that  he  and  his  companions  might  quaff  wine  from 
them.  While  doing  this,  they  break  out  into  praises  of  their  idol-gods,  vs.  1—4. 
Then  came  forth  the  appearance  of  a  man's  hand,  and  inscribed  mysterious  charac 
ters  on  the  wall  over  against  the  king.  Greatly  terrified,  he  summoned  all  the  Magi 
to  decipher  them  ;  but  they  could  not,  vs.  5 — 9.  Then  came  in  the  queen-mother, 
who  reminded  him  of  Daniel,  as  having  formerly  performed  the  office  of  interpreter, 
vs.  10 — 12.  The  king  sends  for  him,  relates  to  him  what  he  had  already  done,  to- 


228  CHAP.  V.  1. 

gether  with  his  disappointment,  and  appeals  to  him  for  a  disclosure  of  the  mysterious 
characters,  vs.  13 — 16.  Daniel  relates  the  demeanor  and  punishment  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar  ;  sets  before  the  king  the  true  nature  of  his  offence ;  and  then  reads  and  ex 
plains  the  writing  on  the  wall,  which  predicts  the  speedy  destruction  of  Belshazzar, 
and  the  dissolution  of  his  kingdom,  vs.  17 — 28.  Daniel  is  promoted;  and  the  same 
night  Belshazzar  is  slain  by  the  invading  Medo-Persian  army,  vs.  30,  31.] 


(1  )  Belshazzar  the  king  made  a  great  feast  for  his  thousand  nobles,  and  before  the 
thousand  he  drank  wine. 


The  name  here  written  isxttfea,  in  7:  7  is  written  iBttjxba  ;  and 
in  1:  7  al.  we  have  still  another  equivalent  form,  viz.  isswaialpa  . 
They  are  all  one  name,  with  merely  a  different  orthography.  The  last 
has  the  Zend  sign  of  the  Gen.  in  full,  x^a  (tsha),  which  in  the  others  is 
softened  down  by  omitting  the  a  .  Meaning  :  Belus  prince.  —  tnb  ,  feast, 
an  unusual  Segholate  form  ;  omitted  by  Winer,  §  28.  1,  where  it  should  be 
inserted.  Usually  the  final  vowel  is  not  (-  ),  unless  preceded  by  Hho- 
lem,  as  in  ^a'p.  The  word  properly  means  food,  bread,  and  so  a  meal, 
for  which  this  is  of  course  provided.  —  A  thousand  nobles  is  but  a  mode 
rate  number  for  such  an  empire  as  that  of  Babylon.  It  is  probable  that 
at  the  feast  of  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes),  Est.  1:  3  —  5,  more  were  present  ; 
see  in  v.  3,  "  all  his  princes  and  servants  ;"  and  this  feast  was  kept  180 
dflys,  v.  4.  Ctesias  says,  that  the  king  of  Persia  furnished  provisions 
daily  for  25,000  men  ;  see  Heeren,  Jdeen,  etc.  I.  s.  493,  3d  edit.  Quin- 
tus  Curtius  says  that  10,000  men  were  present  at  a  festival  of  Alexander 
the  Great  ;  and  Statius  says  of  Domitian,  that  he  ordered,  on  a  certain 
occasion,  his  guests  to  "  sit  down  at  a  thousand  tables.  —  ^?i?/?1  ?  an^  ^e~ 
fore  ;  but  in  what  sense  ?  The  meaning  does  not  seem  to  be  simply,  that 
he  drank  wine  in  their  presence,  while  they  looked  on  ;  for  this  would  be 
jejune.  The  probable  meaning  would  seem  to  imply,  that  the  king's  seat 
was  a  separate  one,  at  the  head  of  the  table,  so  that  all  his  guests  were 
before  him,  and  could  have  a  full  view  of  him.  The  assertion  of  the  text 
then  would  seem  to  be,  that  he  sat  down  to  the  feast  with  them,  although 
separated  in  some  way  from  them  and  opposite  to  them.  When  it  is  said, 
that  "  he  drank  wine  before  the  thousand,"  the  predominant  element  at 
such  a  feast  is  named  as  the  representative  of  the  whole.  Accordingly,  in 
v.  10,  the  place  where  the  guests  assembled  is  named  N^P]'tSB  ma  ,  ban- 
queting-house.  The  Babylonians  were  famous  above  all  men  for  intemper 
ance,  specially  in  drinking.  The  feast  in  question  some  have  thought  to 
be  the  Sacae  (Saturnalia)  of  the  Babylonians  ;  others,  that  of  a  corona 
tion  day  ;  others,  a  birth-day  festival.  Either  of  the  two  latter  is  more 


CHAP.  V.  2,  3.  229 

probable  than  the  former.  But  whatever  feast  it  was,  it  seems  to  have 
been  attended  with  religious  rites  and  services,  comp.  vs.  4,  23.  To 
drink  deep  appears  in  fact  to  have  been  a  part  of  their  polluted  and  de 
grading  services.  The  sequel  is  not  to  be  wondered  at. 

(2)  Belshazzar,  while  tasting  the  wine,  gave  command  to  bring  in  the  vessels  of 
gold  and  silver,  which  Nebuchadnezzar  his  father  had  carried  awav  from  the  temple 
in  Jerusalem,  that  out  of  them  the  king,  his  nobles,  his  wives,  and  his  concubines, 
might  drink. 


fi?aa  ,  in  tasting,  which  however  does  not  mean  merely  sipping  in 
order  to  determine  the  flavor,  or  as  a  prelude  to  drinking  more  freely, 
but  drinking  with  relish,  and  therefore  plentifully.  —  n^n^ft  ,  Inf.  Aph.  of 
Krx  ,  §  24.  2.  Aph.  —  ^x^  >  Ace.  with  b  ,  plur.  const,  of  'JXB  =  rwxa  , 
from  rwx  .  —  pQsri  ,  Aph.  —  insnx  ,  §  35.  —  cbiasma  ,  also  written  with 
final  nb  —  ,  see  Lex.  —  "p'xnd^i  ,  Fut.  Peal  of  xn^;  ,  here  connected  with  1?, 
and  employed  in  like  manner  as  the  Heb.  Fut.  with  this  particle  often  is. 
—  "pna  ,  lit.  in  them  .  So  the  Greeks  :  aivsiv  lv  BOTIJQIOIS  '•>  Lat.  in  auro 
bibitur,  in  ossibus  capitum  bibere,  to  drink  in  skulls  ;  French,  boire  dans  une 
fosse,  etc.  Our  idiom  demands  out  of  instead  of  in.  To  render  a  in 
this  case  by  =  by  means  of,  might  bring  the  Chald.  idiom  and  ours  to 
gether  ;  but  I  doubt  whether  the  particle  has  that  meaning  in  the  origi 
nal  here.  —  fir^W  ?  pi-  of  biilj  with  suff.,  which  latter  is  in  the  Sing., 
p.  36,  top.  The  form  of  this  noun  is  omitted  in  Winer.  It  should  have 
been  inserted  in  §  28.  1,  after  No.  3.  —  inranb,  plur.  with  sing.  suff.  at 
tached  in  the  same  way.  The  circumstance  here  mentioned,  viz.  that  the 
king's  wives  and  concubines  were  admitted  to  the  feast,  shows  how  differ 
ent  the  manners  of  the  Babylonians  were  from  those  of  the  Persians, 
Greeks,  and  other  nations  of  the  East.  Vashti,  the  Persian  queen,  would 
not  appear  at  the  feast-table,  even  when  commanded  by  the  king,  Est.  i.  ; 
and  among  the  Greeks,  none  but  women  of  a  degraded  character  sat  down 
at  a  feast  with  men.  Herodotus  tells  us,  I.  109,  that  *  it  was  a  detestable 
religious  law  among  the  Babylonians,  that  every  woman  should  once  pros 
titute  herself,  in  the  temple  of  Mylitta,  to  the  first  comer.'  Curtius  says, 
that  *  women  were  not  only  present  at  the  feasts,  but  as  the  guests  be 
came  warmed  with  wine,  they  divested  themselves  gradually  of  their 
clothing.'  "  Nor  was  this,"  adds  he,  "  merely  a  disgraceful  affair  of  pros 
titutes,  but  it  was  deemed  an  act  of  comity  by  matrons  and  virgins." 
What  sort  of  a  banquet  Belshazzar  was  engaged  in,  seems  to  be  sufficiently 
evident  from  such  testimonies.  Hence  the  aggravation  of  the  insult  to 
the  God  of  heaven. 

(3)  Then  they  brought  the  vessels  of  gold  which  had  been  carried  away  from  the 


130  CHAP.  V.  4-6. 

temple  of  the  house  of  God,  which  is  in  Jerusalem,  and  out  of  them  drank  the  king 
and  his  nobles,  his  wives  and  his  concubines. 

l^.n ,  Aph.  of  sns: .  —  *ipB3.n ,  for  Hhireq  under  B ,  see  §  12. 1.  b.  — 
VfMBXi,  Peal  of  xnw  with  an  K  prosthetic  —  a  peculiar  idiomatic  form, 
see  Lex. 

(4)  They  drank  wine,  and  praised  the  gods  of  gold  and  silver,  of  brass,  iron,  wood, 
and  stone. 

K9K ,  emph.  =  Heb.  ^5 ,  see  Lex.  s ,  st .  The  word  wood  doubtless 
designates  the  frame-work  of  the  image,  which  was  first  carved  and  then 
gilded.  Probably  the  brass  and  iron  gods  were  cast  images,  plated  with 
gold  or  silver.  The  stone  was  an  unfrequent  material  for  images  in  Bab 
ylon  ;  but  some  marble  images  are  found  among  its  ruins  at  the  present 
time. 

(5)  At  that  very  moment,  there  came  forth  fingers  of  a  man's  hand,  and  they  wrote 
over  against  the  chandelier,  on  the  plaster  of  the  palace-wall  of  the  king ;  and  the 
king  saw  the  extremity  of  the  hand  which  wrote. 

fiS ,  §  43.  6.  b.  —  sip&a ,  so  the  Kethibh  would  read ;  but  the  vowels 
here  belong  to  the  Qeri  n^S?  =  X|?£j>  3  pi.  fern.  The  Kethibh  assumes 
the  masc.  gender  of  saxx ;  which  is  not  improbable,  although  not  else 
where  so  employed.  —  "jara  ,  Part.  fern,  plur.,  following  the  usual  con 
struction.  —  The  writing  being  over  against  (ba^b)  the  chandelier,  would 
be  very  conspicuous.  To  deduce  from  st^a ,  plaster,  the  conclusion  (hat 
the  feast-hall  must  have  been  in  the  court  of  the  palace,  and  not  in  the 
building,  seems  to  be  going  quite  too  far.  The  outside  of  buildings  in  the 
East  is  alleged  to  have  been  plastered,  and  not  the  inside.  But  I  see 
nothing  here  to  render  it  probable  that  the  guests  were  in  the  outer  court. 
—  &n^  OB ,  the  extremity  of  the  hand,  i.  e.  the  fingers,  was  all  that  was 
visible.  —  xaro  ,  Part.  fern,  used  for  the  verb.  The  accents  bid  us  render 
the  last  clause  thus :  The  Icing  looked,  an  extremity  of  the  hand  (there  was) 
which  wrote.  I  prefer  the  translation  given  above. 

(6)  Then  the  king  changed  his  color  and  his  thoughts  agitated  him,  and  the  joints 
of  his  loins  were  loosed,  and  his  knees  smote  one  against  the  other. 

Lit.  the  first  clause :  Then  as  to  the  king  —  his  splendors  changed  for  him. 
In  Vp'Sia,  the  suff.  in  is  sing.  masc.  (p.  34,  2nd  Par.),  while  *pt  has  a 
suffix  of  the  same  form  which  is  plur.  (p.  35,  Par.  2),  and  which  of  course 
indicates  that  the  noun  itself  is  plural.  On  this  account  it  seems  necessary 
to  render  the  sun0,  to  the  verb  intransitive  (isd  ),  as  being  in  the  Dative  — 
changed  for  him,  or  in  the  Ace.  in  respect  to  him,  §  57. 2.  b,  comp.  Heb.  Gram.  § 


CHAP.  V.  6.  131 

116. 3.  If  not,  then  we  must  interpret  I'SIB  as  transitive,  and  translate  thus, 
changed  him,  which  will  hardly  make  any  good  sense,  unless  we  interpret  it 
as  meaning  changed  his  appearance.  Perhaps  the  true  solution  is  to  be  found 
in  the  assonance  of  the  two  words  as  to  their  ending ;  for  in  making  out  this, 
an  irregularity  (here  and  at  times  elsewhere)  as  to  normal  construction 
is  occasioned.     That  the  suff.  in-  after  the  verb  iad  is  to  be  rendered  by 
an  oblique  case,  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  v.  9  below,  where  that  which  is 
here  a  simple  verbal  suffix,  is  exchanged  for  the  separate  pronoun  with  a 
preposition,  viz.  Tifts  ;  and  another  example  of  this  latter  construction 
may  be  seen  also  in  7:  28,  and  the  like  in  10:  8.   Lengerke  takes  the  suff. 
to  the  verb  as  virtually  a  reflexive  pronoun,  and  renders  :  verdnderte  sick, 
changed  itself;   in  which  case  he  also  changes  ^ni^t  to  tne  sing,  number. 
But  as  the  verb  is  plural,  and  the  Norn,  to  it  is  plural,  how  comes  the 
verbal  suff.  to  be  singular  ?     Besides,  inasmuch  as  the  verb  is  in  its  very 
nature  intransiti vein  Peal,  examples  are  wanting  to  justify  the  position, 
that  such  verbs  may  take  and  properly  govern  a  reflexive  pronoun-object. 
With  Rosenm.,  Gesenius,  Winer,  and  Maurer,  therefore,  I  prefer  the 
other  construction.     Analogy  in  the  other  examples  quoted,  seems  indeed 
fairly  to  decide  the  matter.  —  npbna-j ,  Fut.  Peal  pi.  with  suff.  and  par- 
ag.  3 ,  p.  58.  Rem.  1.  —  fiapn ,  sing,  of  ]^n  with  suff.  =  Heb.  dual  Q^bn , 
V  and  "i  (as  often)  being  exchanged.     The  Chald.  and  Syr.  use  the  sing. 
here,  instead  of  the  dual ;    see   Lex.     The  joints  of  his  loins   probably 
means  his  hip-joints  or  the  joints  in  the  lower  part  of  the  spine.     The 
meaning  seems  to  be,  that  he  was  unable  to  keep  his  standing,  by  reason 
of  these  natural  supports  being  rendered  tremulous.     Let  the  reader  com 
pare  Ezek.  21:  7.  Ps.  69:  24  (23).  Deut.  33:  11.  Isa.  13:  8,  and  specially 
21:  3.  Nah.  2: 10,  and  he  will  see   how   commonly   violent  emotions, 
especially  of  fear  and  of  suffering,  were  ascribed  to  the  loins  by  the  He 
brews.  —  ynttdB ,  Part.  Ithpaal  of  and ,  exchange  of  iu  and  n.  §  10.  5.  b  ; 
(-)  under  fi  because  the  *i  excludes  the  Dagh.  forte,  p.  32,  3d  line.  — 
firasnx ,  fern.  pi.  (with  suff.)  of  ra^x  .     Ges.  has  given  no  account  of 
the  formation  or  etymology  of  the  word  in  his  Lex.     I  take  it  to  be  a  de- 
rivate  of  ^^ ,  to  fall  on  one's  knees,  by  a  transposition  of  letters,  and 
also  by  the  addition  of  a  prosthetic  X. —  &nb  &W  ,  §  43.  5.  a.  —  "i^pi, 
Part.  pi.  fern.     Supposing  the  fact  to  have  been  as  here  related,  in  respect 
to  the  mysterious  hand  and  its  conspicuous  hieroglyphs,  none  can  wonder 
at  the  terror  of  the  king,  who  was  in  a  state  where  excited  feeling  was  of 
course  to  be  expected.    A  fear  of  some  dreadful  evil,  if  not  a  conscious 
ness  of  great  guilt,  must  have  pervaded  his  very  soul.     Even  if  the 
account  be  a  romance,  as  many  recent  critics  affirm,  it  must  at  least  be 
conceded  that  the  writer  has  put  a   skilful  hand  to  the  completion  of  his 
picture. 


132  CHAP.  V.  7—9. 

(7)  The  king  cried  aloud  to  bring  in  the  enchanters,  the  Chaldeans,  and  the  astrolo 
gers.     He  answered  and  said  to  the  wise  men  of  Babylon  :  Any  man  who  will  read 
this  writing,  and  will  show  me  the  interpretation  thereof,  shall  be  clothed  in  purple, 
and  a  collar  of  gold  [be  put]  on  his  neck,  and  he  shall  rule  as  the  third  in  the  king 
dom. 

nbsnb ,  Aph.  Inf.  of  &y .  The  Dagh.  f.  in  Aph.  of  these  verbs  (see 
p.  63)  is  excluded  by  the  s,  and  would  naturally  go  into  a  long  vowel  (-) 
under  the  preceding  fi.  But  as  this  letter  precedes  a  Guttural  with  Qa- 
mets,  its  proper  vowel  must  be  exchanged  for  (- )  ;  see  Roed.  Heb. 
Graram.  p.  66.  Note  2.  b.  — •  The  b  that  follows  marks  the  Ace.  — 
n'n ,  that,  but  here  (as  on  often  in  Greek)  a  mere  sign  of  quotation, 
and  needs  not  to  be  translated.  —  KSns ,  not  fern.,  but  masc.  and  emph. 
form  of  ans.  "7MJT;,  Put.  Aph.  of  Nin,  with  suff.,  p  68.  Rem.  1. — 
N^™ »  emph.,  and  in  the  Ace.  after  izjab^ ,  §  50.  2.  b.  —  aosiasri ,  so 
the  Kethibh  should  be  pointed  ;  to  the  Qeri,  fiO^Eft ,  belong  the  vowels 
in  the  text.  While  this  word  may  mean  any  kind  of  metal  ornament  at 
tached  to  one's  person,  it  has  here  a  specific  meaning,  as  the  context 
shows,  viz.  collet  or  collar.  —  "'Fibrn,  a  form  sui  generis;  in  v.  16  is 
an  emph.  from  Nlr&n ;  which  seems  to  come  from  nbn .  The  Chald.  has 
a  regular  form,  ""rfbn  ,  third;  and  ""Pibn  seems  to  be  a  word  that  has 
been  shortened  from  it,  probably  in  order  to  make  a  kind  of  proper  name 
for  the  officer  third  in  rank.  The  Grand  Vizier  (as  we  say  in  reference  to 
Turkey)  was  the  second  officer,  i.  e.  was  prime  minister  of  the  king  who 
was  first ;  the  ^Pibn  stands  next  to  Vizier. 

(8)  Then  entered  all  the  wise  men  of  the  king,  and  they  were  not  able  to  read  the 
writing,  and  make  known  the  interpretation  thereof  to  the  king. 

•jbbs  the  Kethibh  should  read ;  the  vowels  now  appended  belong  to 
the  Qeri ,  *pks  .  The  Kethibh  is  preferable.  —  T^H?  >  Part,  again,  the 
verse  having  no  proper  definite  verb  in  it.  —  K^E  >  Inf.  Peal  of  frnp. 
—  From  the  circumstance  here  related  of  their  inability  to  read  the  in 
scription,  it  seems  c  lear,  hat  the  characters  were  neither  the  usual  de 
motic  nor  the  hieratic.  That  the  Babylonians  used  both,  seems  to  be 
rendered  nearly  certain,  by  Grotefend,  whose  Essay  on  the  subject  is 
printed  by  Heeren,  at  the  end  of  Vol.  II.  of  his  Ideen.  But  the  Magi  must 
of  course  have  been  able  to  read  both  characters ;  as  was  the  case  with  the 
priests  of  Egypt.  Much  speculation  there  has  been  on  the  form  of  the 
characters  in  question,  and  rtiany  things  have  been  said,  which  it  would 
serve  but  little  purpose  to  relate.  Enough  that  the  characters  were  such 
as  frustrated  all  the  efforts  of  the  Magi  to  read  them. 

I 

(9)  Then  Belshazzar  the  king  was  greatly  agitated,  and  his  color  was  changed 

upon  him,  and  his  nobles  were  perplexed. 


CHAP.  V.  10,  11.  133 

Part,  in  Ithpael,  a  because  Dagh.  f.  is  omitted  in  the  Ti .  — 
As  to  *rh*\  etc.,  see  on  v.  6  above.  Here  hrtibs  upon  him,  seems  to 
indicate  the  diffusion  of  the  color  over  him,  i.  e.  over  the  surface  of  the 
skin.  —  -paia,  Part.  pi.  see  in  Par.  VII.  p.  92.  —  "prawns,  Part.  Ith- 
paal  of  wad,  with  the  usual  exchange  of  n  and  izi. 

(10)  The  queen  —  because  of  the  affairs  of  the  king  and  his  nobles,  she  had  come 
to  the  banqueting-house —  the  queen  answered  and  said  :  0  king,  live  forever !    Let 
not  thy  thoughts  disturb  thee,  nor  thy  color  be  changed  ! 

But  who  is  the  queen  ?  Not  Belshazzar's  wife ;  for  his  wives  and 
concubines  were  already  at  the  table ;  see  vs.  2,  23.  It  seems,  then, 
to  be  his  mother  or  grandmother,  who  had  once  enjoyed  the  title  of 
queen,  which  by  courtesy  (as  usual)  was  continued  after  her  husband's 
death.  Either  of  these,  but  specially  the  latter,  would  well  know  all 
that  is  said  in  the  sequel  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  what  befel  him.  — 
i!ba ,  pi.  const.,  seems  to  mean  affairs  here.  We  might  render  it  words, 
and  refer  it  to  the  command  of  the  king  to  bring  in  the  Magi,  of  which 
the  queen  had  heard,  were  it  not  that  it  stands  related  to  the  nobles  as 
well  as  to  the  king.  —  rk$  ,  for  so  reads  the  Qeri,  is  probably  the  right 
reading  here,  and  is  3  sing.  fern.  Peal  of  bbs> .  But  nbbs  (the  Kethibh) 
is  no  bad  or  improbable  reading ;  for  the  Part,  may  have  such  a  fern,  form, 
so  common  in  the  verb.  The  Part,  construction  is  about  as  frequent  as 
that  with  the  verb.  — Yos> ,  3  fern.  Peal.  —  rnaNp ,  3  fern.  Peal,  p.  53. 
3  Gutt.  Note  3.  —  7pl">t ,  plur.  with  suff.,  t]"1-  retaining  (i)  as  the  index 
of  the  plural.  —  isnts^ ,  Fut.  Ithpaal  of  aoia ,  n  and  12  exchanging  places 
as  usual.  In  this  case  there  is  neither  suff.  nor  separate  pronoun,  but  the 
verb  is  reflexive,  and  equivalent  to  Let  (them)  not  change  themselves.  — 
The  repetition  of  the  Kra^  in  the  first  clause,  by  the  second  clause,  is  a 
mere  resumption  of  the  sentence  after  a  parenthetic  clause  had  been  thrown 
in. 

(11)  There  is  a  man  in  thy  kingdom,  in  whom  is  the  spirit  of  the  holy  gods,  and  in 
the  days  of  thy  father,  intelligence,  discretion,  and  wisdom  like  the  wisdom  of  the  gods, 
was  found  in  him  ;  and  king  Nebuchadnezzar,  thy  father,  appointed  him  the  chief  of 
the  sacred  scribes,  the  Chaldees,  the  astrologers,  [even]  thy  father,  0  king ! 

Spirit  of  the  holy  gods  is  the  same  language  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
employs  in  speaking  of  Daniel,  4:  8,  9,  18,  (Eng.  Version).  —  WTO  Cl  fir 
nv-  §  31. 1),  form  in  §  28.  a.  4.  Light  intellectually  or  tropically  under 
stood,  is  the  meaning,  i.  e.  intelligence.  —  wr&aia ,  (*!-  for  M— ).  Here 
are  two  sufFormatives,  first  the  syllable  ")- ,  and  then  the  M  or  *i  ;  see 
§  30.  —  nnstvas-i ,  Ithpael  3  fern,  of  rotf ;  for  ending,  p.  53,  3  Gutt., 
Note  3.  —  King  Nebuchadnezzar  thy  father,  Leng.  with  Rosenm.  takes 

12 


134  CHAP.  V.  12,  13. 

as  Nom.  abs.  ;  with  Maurer,  I  prefer  the  arrangement  in  the  version, 
which  makes  it  the  subject  of  the  verb  that  follows.  Then  at  the  close  ; 
the  repetition,  thy  father,  0  king,  has  an  intensive,  emphatic  meaning,  as 
much  as  to  say :  *  Even  a  man  of  such  sagacity  and  distinction  as  thy 
father,  made  this  appointment.' 

(12)  Inasmuch  as  an  excellent  spirit,  and  the  knowledge,  and  discretion  of  one 
who  interpreteth  dreams,  and  explaineth  dark  sayings,  and  solveth  knotty  points, 
was  found  in  this  same  Daniel,  whom  the  king  named  Belteshazzar,  let  Daniel  now 
be  called,  and  let  him  give  the  interpretation. 

The  construction  is  somewhat  difficult,  and  interpreters  are  not  agreed 
respecting  it.  C.  B.  Michaelis  supplies  n*Ti  before  the  nouns  that  fol 
low,  e.  g.  spirit  of  knowledge,  etc.  I  prefer  to  carry  forward  larfcato , 
and  mentally  to  repeat  it  before  the  two  latter  clauses  thus :  "  [the  dis 
cretion,  i.  e.  power  to  distinguish  nicely]  belonging  to  the  explanation  of 
dark  sayings,  [discretion]  of  one  who  solves  knotty  points,  etc.  —  fi^ni* 
is  the  const,  form  of  the  noun  ;  I  have  rendered  it  as  if  it  were  a  parti 
ciple,  like  "HSSB  and  aoiao ,  because  this  better  suits  our  idiom.  —  "j^H^,  > 
fern,  pi.,  formed  from  ^nn  by  2*  prosthetic,  enigmas,  or  dark  sayings.  — 
The  word  "p'rop  is  rendered  joints  in  v.  6 ;  which  is  its  literal  sense. 
Here  it  means  knots  or  joints  in  a  tropical  sense,  i.  e.  matters  that  are 
hard  or  difficult  to  be  solved.  —  ^X^a  Pia ,  in  this  same  Daniel,  §  43. 
6.  b.  —  ^i?^.  5  Fut.  Ithpeal  of  K'np ;  here  it  means  called  in  the  sense  of 
summoned.  —  frjnrn  Fut.  Aph.  of  xin ,  with  n  praeform.  retained,  p.  49.  5. 
The  tone  in  which  this  last  clause  is  spoken,  betokens  that  the  speaker 
herself  is  conscious  of  an  elevated  rank  and  a  kind  of  authority,  or  at 
least  a  right  to  give  advice ;  a  tone  which  only  such  a  woman  as  stood  in 
the  relation  of  a  mother  (not  of  a  wife)  could  assume  in  the  East,  before 
a  king. 

(13)  Then  Daniel  was  brought  before  the  king.  The  king  answered  and  said  to 
Daniel :  Art  thou  the  same  Daniel  that  belongeth  to  the  captives  of  Judea,  whom  the 
king,  my  father,  brought  away  from  Judea  ? 

bsft  =  >5*irt ,  the  Hophal  of  the  biblical  Ghaldee,  which  is  always  em 
ployed  in  the  Chald.  of  the  O.  Test.,  in  the  room  of  Ittaphal,  the  pass,  of 
Aphel,  §  12.  6,  root  bb».  —  The  same  Daniel,  §  43.  6.  b.  —  jtn^a  is  ab 
stract,  captivity  ;  but  here  it  is  plainly  a  case  of  the  abstract  for  the 
.concrete,  and  so  I  have  translated  it  captives.  —  *ftTt\  is  the  Chald.  name 
of  the  Jewish  country.  —  In  ir^rt  ^ ,  the  I'n  may  relate  to  Daniel,  or  to 
the  captives  at  large.  I  prefer  the  latter  sense,  as  being  the  fuller,  and 
in  this  case  the  more  probable ;  wn  3  pers.  sing.  Aph.  of  xrx .  —  "ox  is 


CHAP.  V.  14—16.  135 

anomalous  as  to  accent  ;  since  there  is  no  apparent  reason  for  placing 
the  tone  on  the  penult,  and  if  placed  there,  we  should  of  course  expect  a 
(  -  )  and  not  a  (  -  )  in  the  tone-syllable.  What  guided  the  Punctators 
in  this  case,  it  would  be  difficult  to  say.  This  suffix  is  nowhere  else  ap 
pended  to  DX  ,  either  in  Chaldee  or  in  Hebrew.  Maurer  thinks  that  the 
word  should  be  read  "OX  (abh),  after  the  Syriac  manner  of  pronouncing 
it.  It  may  be  that  the  Punctators,  having  no  other  exemplar  to  guide 
them,  designed  to  follow  that  analogy  as  to  the  stress  of  the  voice. 

(14)  And  I  have  heard  respecting  thee,  that  the  spirit  of  the  gods  is  in  thee,  and 
that  intelligence,  and  discretion,  and  much  wisdom  is  found  in  thee. 

T^?  5  with  the  usual  Qeri  T^$  >  which  is  needless.  —  li^Ha  ,  in  some 
Codd.  si-Hiia  ;  but  Qamets  before  n  in  such  a  case  is  not  very  frequent. 
The  Pattah  is  long  here,  if  the  form  has  a  Dagh.  implicitum.  But  this 
is  hardly  probable.  For  the  rest,  see  v.  11. 

(15)  Then  were  brought  before  me  the  wise  men,  the  enchanters,  that  they  might 
read  this  writing,  arid  to  show  me  the  interpretation  thereof;  and  they  were  not  able 
to  show  the  interpretation  of  the  thing. 

tesn  ,  Hoph.  3  plur.  (instead  of  Ittaphal),  from  toy  ,  §  12.  6.  —  -j-hp^  .  .  . 
i*T  ,  that  .  .  .  they  might  read,  just  as  in  Heb.,  "usx  followed  by  the  Fut. 
designates  the  same  shade  of  meaning  ;  Ges.  Lex.  lirx  .  B.  2.  Instead 
of  such  a  construction,  we  have  an  Inf.  with  b  in  the  next  clause,  viz. 
^^T^  '  h?~  Buff.  ;  nwil'ii  (written  plene),  Aph.  Inf.,  for  ending,  p.  56. 
e.  For  change  of  construction,  comp.  1:  5.  —  xn^  ,  matter,  thing,  mean 
ing  the  whole  of  the  extraordinary  transaction  that  had  taken  place. 
The  place  of  the  noun  here,  (being  twice  put  before  the  Inf.  which  gov 
erns  it),  deserves  to  be  noted.  It  is  frequent  in  the  Chaldee;  see  v.  16. 
2:  16,  18.  4:  15,  al. 

(16)  And  I  have  heard  concerning  thee,  that  thou  canst  skilfully  interpret,  and 
solve  knotty  points  ;  now  if  thou  canst  read  the  writing,  and  show  me  the  interpreta 
tion  thereof,  thou  shalt  be  clothed  in  purple,  and  a  collar  of  gold  shall  [be  put]  on 
thy  neck,  and  thou  shalt  rule  as  the  third  in  the  kingdom. 


,  (so  the  Kethibh  should  be  read)  agrees  with  the  form  in  2:  10, 
and  shows  that  it  is  the  Hebraizing  Hophal.  The  Qeri  has  put  in  its 
place  the  regular  Fut.  Peal  form,  viz.  bisn  ,  without  any  necessity  ;  root 
^5")  .  —  lizJBialp  TT^5?  >  lit-  t°  interpret  interpretations,  a  Chald.  and  Heb. 
idiom,  which  means  to  practise  making  interpretations,  or  to  interpret 
skilfully.  Our  idiom  excludes  a  literal  version  ;  see  the  whole  clause  in 
v.  12.  —  Read  baw  as  before  ;  the  case  is  the  same.  For  the  rest,  see 
on  v.  7  above. 


136  CHAP.  V.  17—19. 

(17)  Then  answered  Daniel  before  the  king  and  said:  May  thy  gifts  be  for  thy 
self,  and  bestow  thy  rich  presents  on  another!  The  writing,  however,  I  will  read  for 
the  king,  and  I  will  show  him  the  interpretation. 


grotto  ,  plur.  const,  form,  with  suff.  ;  which  (in  the  fern,  pi.)  is  always 
appended  to  the  const,  form,  p.  88.  4.  d.  —  ^^  ,  see  on  2:  20.  —  Tjn^ataa', 
see  on  2:  6.  —  V^x,  adj.  with  a  sufformative  "j-,  not  unfrequent  in  this 
class  of  words.  —  5Ji  ,  Imper.  of  art1}  .  —  Daniel  must  not  be  regarded  as 
saying  this  contemptuously.  Plainly  it  is  merely  designed  to  express  his 
willingness  to  interpret  without  any  fee  or  reward  ;  and  it  is  as  much  as 
to  say  :  '  At  the  king's  disposal  may  all  the  blessings  remain,  that  he 
would  bestow  upon  me  !  If  he  insists  on  giving,  I  would  rather  he  should 
do  this  to  some  other  person  than  to  myself.'  —  fiS^rifiX  ,  Aph.  Fut. 
with  suff.,  for  which  see  p.  58.  Hem.  1. 

(18)  As  to  thee,  0  king,  the  most  high  God  gave  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  thy  father, 
dominion,  and  greatness,  and  honor,  and  glory. 

The  Norn,  independent,  (such  are  the  two  first  words),  is  no  unusual 
construction  ;  it  is  even  much  more  frequent  in  Chaldee  than  in  Heb. 
prose.  —  &*k'j  ,  so  it  should  be  read,  is  the  emphatic  form,  from  the  abs. 
form  *k$  .  —  See  and  compare  2:  37,  for  the  verse  in  general. 

(19)  And  because  of  the  greatness  which  he  gave  to  him,  all  nations,  people,  and 
tongues  trembled  and  feared  before  him,  whomsoever  he  would  he  killed,  and  whom 
soever  he  would  he  kept  alive  ;  whomsoever  he  would  he  exalted,  and  whomsoever 
he  would  he  humbled. 


Ityi  has  for  its  Nom.  Xft^x  implied,  as  in  the  preceding  verse  it  is  ex 
pressed.  —  T?^  nas  another  orthography  given  to  it  by  the  Qeri,  but 
needs  it  not,  for  s*it  may  be  thus  declined  in  the  Part.  ;  see  in  Par.  p.  68. 
The  verb  of  existence,  joined  with  it,  strongly  marks  what  is  continued 
or  customary.  —  I'n  whoever,  whomsoever  =  "ids  ,  is  in  the  Ace.,  and  is 
directly  the  object  of  ^25  j5  .  The  so  frequent  repetition  of  the  helping 
verb  here  with  the  respective  participles,  is  rather  unusual.  The  whole 
array  of  the  diction  is  adapted  strongly  to  mark  what  was  continued  and 
customary.  —  xrro  ,  for  uorra  or  ^rra  ,  Aphel  Part.  apoc.  of  X^ri  ;  some 
Codd.  read  xn^Q  ,  which  is  well  enough,  (comp.  the  Hebrew  fnrra),  for 
Pattah  will  answer  well  before  the  n  .  But  NITS  is  not  a  bad  reading,  inas 
much  as  the  closed  syllable  rra  (in  the  full  form)  becomes  an  open  one 
in  the  apoc.  form,  and  may  therefore  take  Qamets.  —  d^E  is  Part.  Aph. 
of  oil  ;  for  (-)  under  the  72,  see  §  22.  1.  —  bBiaa,  Aph.  Part.  ;  for  the 
final  Hhireq,  see  §  12.  1.  1.  The  arbitrary  and  despotic  power  of  an  Ori 
ental  sovereign  is  very  briefly  and  graphically  expressed  in  the  two  par 
allel  Gviypi  contained  in  the  latter  part  of  this  verse.  Some  critics  have 


CHAP.  V.  20,  21.  137 

rendered  srra  as  if  it  were  a  Part,  of  Krra  to  strike,  beat :  but  this  breaks 
up  the  antithesis  between  this  word  and  bM£ ,  and  disturbs  the  easy  and 
obvious  course  of  thought. 

(20)  And  when  his  heart  was  lifted  up,  and  his  spirit  was  emboldened  to  behave 
with  insolence,  he  was  thrust  down  from  the  throne  of  his  kingdom,  and  honor  did 
they  take  from  him. 

d"n  might  be  taken  as  3d  Praet.,  for  in  part  this  verb  is  *y ;  but  more 
probably  it  is  the  Part.  Peil  here  ;  comp.  D^b  in  3:  29.  6:  27.  The  par 
ticle  ^s ,  when,  is  naturally  joined  with  a  participle ;  see  in  3:  7.  —  ^Bpn , 
3  fern.,  for  its  Nom.  n*H  is  comm.  gender;  lit.  grew  strong  QYfirm,fir- 
mavit,  but  figuratively,  in  relation  to  the  mind,  was  or  became  emboldened. 
—  rritrib,  Inf.  Aph.  of  lit ,  to  be  proud,  to  act  haughtily  or  insolently,  the 
rt  in  both  cases  is  for  x  of  the  regular  Chaldee.  —  r\n?fi ,  a  plain  case  of 
the  Hophal,  in  the  place  of  Ittaphal.  —  Nbt®  > m  Heb.  K63  (forma  Dagh.), 
and  the  double  s  in  Hebrew  is  in  Aramaean  usually  exchanged  for  rs, 
which  softens  the  hissing  ;  see  Ges.  Lex.  1 .  The  word  originally  means 
a  covered  or  protected  place,  in  reference  to  the  tapestry  hung  around 
the  regal  seat  or  throne.  —  ^^'nl  >  honor,  means  his  honorable  office  or 
royal  dignity.  —  T^'H  >  3  plur.  Aph.  of  JOS,  without  any  subject,  and  so 
it  might  be  rendered  passively,  §  49.  3.  b. 

(21)  And  from  men  was  he  thrust  out,  and  his  heart  was  like  the  beasts,  and  with 
the  wild  asses  was  his  dwelling ;  with  herbage  like  the  oxen  was  he  fed,  and  by  the 
dew  of  heaven  was  his  body  bathed,  until  he  acknowledged  that  God  most  high  is 
ruler  over  the  kingdom  of  men,  and  whomsoever  he  pleaseth  he  setteth  up  over  it. 

For  this  verse  in  general,  comp.  4:  29.  —  isittJ ,  as  it  is  now  pointed, 
can  be  made  only  in  Pael,  3  pers.  Perf.  But  then,  who  is  the  subject  of 
the  verb  ?  If  the  reply  is  :  God,  then  the  context  gives  no  support  to 
this.  If  Nebuchadnezzar  be  the  subject,  and  the  meaning  be:  he  made 
his  own,  heart  like  the  beasts,  the  history  in  chap.  iv.  seems  to  make 
against  this,  for  according  to  that,  the  malady  fell  on  him  as  a  divine 
judgment.  The  present  punctuation  seems  to  me  as  designed  for  the  3 
plur.  impers.,  i.  e.  V^tiJ;  for  the  1  now  standing  apparently  as  a  conjunc 
tion  before  the  next  word,  seems  originally  to  have  belonged  here,  and 
has  been  transferred  to  the  next  word  by  the  mere  oversight  of  tran 
scribers.  It  is  on  this  basis,  that  the  version  given  above  rests ;  see  §  49. 
3.  b.  But  a  more  simple  and  easy  way.  perhaps,  is  to  point  IHB  thus  : 
•»ltt3s,  in  which  case  it  is  a  Part.  Peil,  §  23.  p.  74.  5.  Verbs  of  compari 
son  may  take  after  them  d2 ,  as  here,  or  s>  might  be  employed.  Which 
ever  of  these  particles  is  employed,  the  mental  repetition  of  Mb  after  it, 
is  of  course  to  be  supposed.  —  With  the  wild  asses  shall  be  his  abode>  is  a 

12* 


138  CHAP.  V.  22—24. 

circumstance  added  by  the  speaker,  and  not  found  in  4:  29.  It  is  added 
for  the  sake  of  stronger  impression.  —  ftMasB1*  ,  Pael,  3  plur.  impers.  of 
BSB  ,  and  so,  passive  in  its  meaning,  §  49.  3.  b.  —  an-i  does  not  mean 
merely  mental  perception  of  the  truth  in  question,  but  also  what  we  call 
acknowledgment,  i.  e.  acting  in  conformity  with  what  cognition  demands. 
—  tn^rr;  ,  Aph.  Fut.  of  dip  ,  with  n  retained  (p.  49.  5)  ;  and  as  to  the 
Qamets  under  it,  see  §  22.  1.  —  rrbs  suff.  fern,  sing.,  but  not  inserted  in 
Par.  of  suffixes,  p.  35.  See  p.  36,  end  of  2d  paragraph,  and  comp.  in 
Dan.  7:  19. 

(22)  And  thou,  his  son  Belshazzar,  hast  not  humbled  thine  heart,  notwithstanding 
thou  hast  known  all  this. 


, 


suff.  state  of  ia  .  —  P&Bian  ,  Aph.  2  pers.  —  rOT  ,  where  the 
ending  (n-)  is  full  ;  see  §  12.  2.  This  verse  plainly  exhibits  the  charge 
against  the  impious  king,  and  contains  the  reason  for  his  speedy  excision. 
The  next  verse  enlarges  and  confirms  the  charge. 

(23)  But  against  the  "Lord  of  the  heavens  hast  thou  lifted  up  thyself,  and  the  ves 
sels  of  his  house  have  been  brought  before  thee,  and  thou,  and  thy  nobles,  wives,  and 
concubines,  have  drunk  wine  out  of  them  ;  and  the  gods  of  silver,  gold,  brass,  iron, 
wood,  and  stone,  which  neither  hear,  nor  see,  nor  know,  hast  thou  praised  ;  but  the 
God  in  whose  hand  thy  breath  is,  and  whose  are  all  thy  ways,  thou  hast  not  glorified. 


Ithpolel  of  nsn,  §  14.  1.  2;  for  n-,  §  12.  2.  — 
Ace.  according  to  the  Chald.  construction,  after  l^rrrt  ,  3  pi.  Aph.  of  sri*  . 
But  as  this  verb  has  no  subject,  I  have,  as  usual,  translated  it  passively. 
For  the  sequel  of  the  verse,  see  v.  3  above.  —  •pnd  ,  Part.  pi.  for  verb, 
Par.  VII.  a.  p.  91.  —  ^bxb  ,  Ace.  after  finaia  ,  which  is  in  Pael.  This 
is  an  unusual  removal  of  the  verb  to  a  great  distance  from  its  object,  but 
it  is  occasioned  by  the  copious  explanatory  matter  thrown  in.  I  have 
given  the  words  the  like  order  in  English,  inasmuch  as  it  does  not  ob 
scure  the  sentence.  With  peculiar  emphasis  are  the  participles,  "pm, 
etc.,  employed,  i.  e.  they  exhibit  what  is  customary  and  continued.  —  In 
whose  hand,  i.  e.  in  whose  power,  at  whose  disposal,  is  thy  breath,  i.  e.  thy 
life.  —  And  whose  are  all  thy  ways,  lit.  and  all  thy  ways  are  his,  i.  e.  at 
his  disposal.  The  first  version  is  easier  in  English,  and  equally  per 
spicuous.  Ways  are  courses  of  conduct,  design,  purposes,  and  the  like. 
All  these  belong  entirely  to  the  control  of  the  God  of  heaven.  The  king 
can  achieve  nothing,  nor  accomplish  any  of  his  purposes,  unless  the  God 
head  give  permission.  This  is  surely  plain  and  faithful  admonition  ;  and 
probably  the  king's  conscience  was  smitten  by  it. 

(24)  Then  from  him  was  sent  the  extreme  part  of  a  hand,  and  this  inscription 
was  written. 


CHAP.  V.  25—28.  139 

For  the  use  of  two  participles  Peil  here  for  the  passive  verb,  see  p. 
51.  —  irn^g,  pi.  form  of  the  particle  with  suff.,  lit.  from  before  him, 
which  has  the  force  of  denoting  a  special  and  immediate  interference  on 
the  part  of  the  God  of  heaven. 

(25)  And  this  is  the  inscription  which  was  written  :  Men£,  mene,  tekel,  ti-pharsln. 

I  have  repeated  the  original  words  as  nearly  as  our  alphabet  will  per 
mit  ;  and  so  we  have  them  in  our  common  English  Version.  The  ex 
planation  of  these  words  immediately  follows. 

(26)  This  is  the  interpretation  of  the  language  .  Merit  ^  God  hath  numbered  thy 
reign,  and  brought  it  to  completion. 


nn^  ,  word,  and  here  language.  —  &OB  ,  Part.  Peil  or  passive,  lit.  num 
bered,  numeratum,  computatum.  The  word  ME  is  not  repeated  in  this 
case,  as  in  the  verse  above,  because  it  is  followed  by  the  verb  naa  .  God 
hath  numbered  means,  that  God  has  fixed  the  number  of  his  days,  i.  e. 
the  days  of  his  reign,  beyond  which  they  cannot  be  extended.  So  the 
next  clause  declares  :  And  brought  it  [thy  reign]  to  completion.  —  Jna^iSii  , 
Aph.  with  fern.  suff. 

(27)  Tekel,  thou  are  weighed  in  the  balance,  and  art  found  lacking. 

^JDPI  ,  Part.  Peil  of  b^n  ,  §  12.  1.  1.  c.  exhibits  this  form,  which  is  some 
what  unusual  when  the  verb  is  regular.  —  xt^Ein  ,  as  to  form,  may  be 
2d  sing.  Peal,  for  (v),  see  §12.  1.  1;  for  «n,Vl2.'  1.  2  ;  but  as  the  sense 
is  passive  here  it  is  more  probably  the  pass.  Part.  ;  see  p.  51.  —  tnnarnrri  , 
as  the  vowels  and  diacritical  points  are,  has  a.  furtive  Pattah  under  the  n  ; 
if  it  were  a  proper  vowel,  the  final  n  would  omit  the  Dagh.  lene.  The 
second  Pattah,  therefore,  is  a  mere  euphonic  contrivance,  in  order  to  ease 
the  pronunciation.  —  T'&n  ,  lacking,  deficient.  The  meaning  of  the  figu 
rative  language  is  easily  made  out  from  the  usual  rejection  of  that  which 
is  deficient  in  weight. 

(28)  Peres,  thy  dominion  is  broken,  and  is  given  to  the  Medes  and  Persians. 

G'na  ,  Part.  Peil  here  ;  see  bj5Pi  in  v.  27.  In  v.  25,  the  word  takes  the 
form  of  a  noun  plural,  i.  e.  divisions,  breaches  ;  here  the  Part,  divided  or 
broken,  fractum,  is  employed.  Both  tns  and  to'nQ  in  Heb.  mean  fran- 
gere.  Broken  is  the  better  meaning  here,  for  divided  between  the  Medes 
and  Persians,  would  convey  the  idea  that  each  of  these  was  a  separate 
and  independent  power  ;  which  was  not  the  fact  when  Babylon  was 
captured.  They  were  combined  under  one  head.  —  fiG^Q  ,  Part.  fern. 
Peil,  §  14.  2.  —  rfli'TI  >  Part.  Peil  also,  in  the  same  way  ;  both  for 


140  CHAP.  V.  29,  30. 

verbs  of  the  passive  voice.  —  Lit.  To  the  Mede  and  Persian,  singular 
and  generic,  as  often  everywhere.  I  have  accordingly  translated  by  the 
plural.  The  coincidence  of  D^Q  with  D^B  is  evident.  Assonance  reigns 
throughout  the  whole  ;  as  is  often  the  case  in  short  sententious  sayings. 
It  is  this  which  gives  an  unusual  form  to  ^gti  and  b'nS  ,  so  that  they  may 
sound  like  wa  .  Nothing  can  be  argued,  as  it  seems  to  me,  from  the  use 
of  D'ns  in  order  to  indicate  the  breaking  in  pieces  of  the  Babylonish  do 
minion,  to  show  that  the  Persians  were  then  the  principal  power.  There 
is  no  verb  that  would  chime  with  'I'TO  ,  and  give  the  meaning  here  re 
quired.  But  for  D'nS  ,  it  was  easy  to  find  one  that  corresponded  well. 
This  seems  to  be  all  that  is  mysterious  in  the  case  ;  and  this  mystery  is 
easily  understood. 

(29)  Then  Belshazzar  commanded,  and  they  clothed  Daniel  with  purple,  and  a 
collar  of  gold  [was  put]  on  his  neck,  and  proclamation  was  made  respecting  him, 
that  he  should  be  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom. 


abft  ,  Aph.,  the  subject  of  the  verb,  if  we  make  it  a  personal  verb, 
must  of  course  be  those  attendants  to  whom  the  king  gave  command.  I 
have  translated  in  accordance  with  this  view.  We  may,  however,  take 
the  verb  as  3  plur.  impers.,  and  then  render  it  passively  :  Daniel  was 
clothed,  etc.  —  sifiSiT),  Aph.,  for  vowels,  see  §  12.  1.  1.  I  have  rendered 
this  passively,  for  otherwise  it  might  seem,  that  the  same  persons  who 
decorated  Daniel  with  his  insignia,  were  the  ones  who  made  proclamation  ; 
which,  although  quite  possible,  is  not  very  probable.  In  a  great  court, 
every  department  has  its  appropriate  officers  and  servants.  —  fctjjib  ,  see 
2.  20.  For  the  rest,  see  on  v.  16. 

(30)  In  that  very  night,  was  Belshazzar  king  of  the  Chaldees  slain. 

VI-JJD,  Part.  Peil  used  as  a  passive  verb,  §  13.  2.  According  to  the 
account  here  given,  the  occurrences  related  in  the  preceding  part  of  the 
chapter  must  have  taken  place  sometime  during  the  first  part  of  the 
night  ;  for  the  assault  upon  the  city  was  probably  made  not  far  from 
midnight,  when  the  Babylonians  were  in  the  deepest  part  of  their  revelry, 
and  the  king  and  his  nobles  had  not  yet  withdrawn  from  the  banquet. 
It  would  be  an  important  object,  as  viewed  by  the  invader,  to  come 
upon  them  when  thus  assembled  ;  for  by  a  single  assault  all  the  leaders 
of  the  city  might  be  taken  off  at  once,  and  all  resistance  prevented. 

That  the  first  verse  of  the  following  chapter  should  be  attached  to  the 
present  chapter,  seems  plain,  both  from  the  "i  with  which  it  commences, 
and  from  the  nature  of  the  information  which  it  contains.  Daniel  had 
interpreted  the  inscription  on  the  wall  as  meaning  two  things,  viz.  first 


REMARKS  ON  CHAP.  V.  141 

that  the  king's  days  were  at  an  end  j  and  secondly,  that  his  kingdom 
should  be  given  over  to  foreign  nations.  The  fulfilment  of  the  first  of 
these  predictions  is  related  in  5:  30 ;  that  of  the  second,  in  6:  1.  In  the 
remarks  which  follow,  I  shall  regard  these  two  verses,  therefore,  as  com 
prising  a  part  of  one  and  the  same  narration. 


KEMARKS  ON  CHAP.  V. 

[The  objections  raised  against  the  narrative  in  chap.  v.  are  somewhat 
numerous.  Some  of  them,  in  particular,  are  urged  with  great  zeal,  even 
by  critics  to  whom  is  generally  attributed  a  good  degree  of  acquaintance 
with  the  historical  records  of  antiquity.  Whether  this  knowledge  is  accom 
panied  by  a  candid  and  discriminating  judgment,  in  respect  to  those  re 
cords,  so  far  as  they  concern  the  matters  before  us,  is  a  question  which  may 
be  answered  to  better  advantage,  after  the  subject  has  been  canvassed. 

First  of  all,  I  shall  briefly  advert  to  some  of  the  minor  objections  against 
the  probability  of  some  of  the  narrations  in  chap.  v. ;  and  then  pass  on  to 
examine  those,  where  appeal  is  made  for  confirmation  to  the  earliest  histo 
rians  of  Babylon  and  Persia.  Lengerke  has  industriously  collected  every 
thing  which  is  worth  notice  ;  and  it  is  for  this  particular  reason,  that  I 
bring  him  so  often  into  view,  rather  than  previous  writers. 

(1)  '  Why  does  not  Daniel  appear  before  the  king,  with  the  Magi  who 
are  summoned,  and  of  whom  he  was  chief?  It  is  very  strange,  nay,  alto 
gether  improbable,  that  he  should  be  absent  on  such  an  occasion  ;'  Leng. 
p.  238. 

That  Daniel  had  been  the  chief  of  the  Magi  (2:  48),  is  true.  But  it. 
seems  also  to  be  a  fact,  that  both  the  astrologers  and  physicians  of  an  ori 
ental  king  were  usually  removed  from  office  by  his  successor ;  the  first, 
because  they  had  not  foretold  his  death,  the  second  because  they  had  not 
prevented  it;  see  Ba'hr  ad  Ctes.  p.  16.  Chardin,  in  Harmar's  Observations 
on  Scripture,  Part.  II.  It  is  not  decisive,  therefore,  that  Daniel  was  then 
chief  Magian,  because  we  find  him,  in  the  third  year  of  Belshazzar  (8:  l), 
employed  in  "  the  business  of  the  king,"  8:  27 ;  for  this  may  have  been  a 
subordinate  business,  and  most  probably  was.  Conspirator  against  the 
regular  and  legitimate  monarch  as  Belshazzar  was,  (according  to  Berosus 
and  Abydenus),  it  is  not  likely  that  one  who  had  stood  so  high  as  Daniel 
did  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  would  be  retained  in  an  important  office,  and 
near  the  person  of  the  usurper.  His  able  services  to  the  State  the  king 
might  indeed  require,  in  another  and  lower  capacity,  at  least  for  a  while. 
But  even  if  we  concede  that  Daniel  was  high  in  office,  in  the  third  year  of 
Belshazzar's  reign,  that  reign  lasted  seventeen  years,  and  the  king  might 
well  be  supposed,  long  before  the  end  of  it,  to  have  dismissed  from  impor 
tant  and  active  service  near  his  person,  a  man  who  was  at  least  on  the 
verge  of  four-score  years  when  he  began  to  reign.  That  a  Jew,  and  one 
so  very  aged,  should  not  be  summoned  by  the  Babylonish  king  (5:  7  seq.), 
in  an  exigency  of  fearful  import,  is  far  enough  from  presenting  anything 
strange. 


142  REMARKS  ON    CHAP.  V. 

(2)  '  But  how  can  we  imagine  Belshazzar  to  have  been  so  entirely  igno 
rant  of  Daniel,  and  of  his  peculiar  sagacity,  as  the  narration  in  5: 10  seq. 
supposes  ?' 

The  force  of  this  objection  I  do  not  perceive.  Was  not  the  usurper,  (al 
though  he  might  be  a  descendant  of  Nebuchadnezzar  ;  perhaps  in  a  female 
line,  as  vs.  11,  13,  18,  22,  seem  plainly  to  intimate),  a  person  who  did  not 
belong  to  the  regular  line  of  heirs  apparent,  i.  e.  who  was  not  in  the  regu 
lar  line  of  succession  ?  And  is  there  anything  specially  remarkable  in  the 
narration,  which  seems  to  represent  Belshazzar  as  unacquainted  with  the 
merits  and  claims  of  Daniel,  after  some  half  a  century  had  passed  away 
since  Daniel's  first  achievements  and  promotion  ?  Lengerke  affirms,  that 
'the  account  in  ch.  V.  contradicts  itself;  for  v.  11,  he  says,  shows  the  king 
to  be  ignorant  of  Daniel,  and  v.  13,  that  he  recollected  him.'  But  v.  13  seq. 
merely  repeats  what  Belshazzar  had  just  heard  from  the  queen,  and  affords 
no  semblance  of  a  contradiction.  How  can  it  be  regarded  as  improbable, 
that  an  ambitious  and  reckless  adventurer  and  usurper,  like  Belshazzar, 
should  have  neither  known  nor  cared  anything  about  Daniel  individually 
and  personally,  although  he  had  once  been  in  his  service  ?  8:  27.  Or  if  he 
had  heard  something  of  his  story,  who  can  give  us  any  assurance  that  he  be 
lieved  it,  or  treasured  it  up  in  his  mind  ? 

(3)  '  But  the  hand  and  the  writing !    Here  is  miracle  upon  miracle,  and 
altogether  without  an  object.    There  is  no  historical  basis  whatever,  on  which 
such  an  account  can  rest.    The  whole  must  be  pure  fiction ;'  Leng.  p.  239 
seq. 

So  far  does  the  objector  go,  moreover,  in  this  case,  that  he  even  taxes 
Bertholdt  with  incongruity,  because  he  admits  that  some  sleight-of-hand 
trick,  as  to  the  writing,  had  been  played  off  by  some  of  the  nobles  upon 
the  king,  and  that  the  story  is  founded  on  this.  For  rejecting  such  a  con 
ceit,  I  should  not  indeed  be  disposed  to  find  fault  with  Lengerke  ;  for  the 
idea  of  such  an  imposition  goes  altogether  beyond  the  bounds  of  probability. 
The  king's  friends  could  have  no  motive  for  such  an  exhibition  ;  and  if 
some  of  the  nobles  then  present  were  his  enemies,  and  wished  for  his  fall, 
how  could  they  think  of  putting  him  on  the  alert,  in  order  that  he  might 
guard  against  an  attack  ?  Or  why  should  the  writing  be  in  mystical  charac 
ters  ?  Lengerke,  therefore,  regards  the  whole  story  as  a  mere  fiction.  In  his 
view,  anything  miraculous  is  out  of  question  for  that  very  reason.  It  must 
be  either  mere  pretence  or  a  matter  of  superstition,  or  some  ingenious 
imposition,  and  the  like.  Of  course  the  whole  narrative  here  is  got  up,  as 
he  intimates,  merely  to  exalt  Daniel,  and  to  show  the  doom  of  the  tyrant, 
i.  e.  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  But  if  a  writer,  at  or  near  the  time  when  this 
last  named  tyrant  was  raging  against  the  Jews,  invented  such  a  fiction,  he 
did  this  either  before  his  death,  or  after  it.  If  before,  how  could  he  tell 
whether  the  death  of  Antiochus  would  verify  his  representation  ?  If  after, 
what  was  the  use  of  predicting  what  had  already  come  to  pass  ?  Still  more  ; 
Antiochus  died  a  natural  death  from  disease,  not  by  the  hand  of  conspira 
tors  or  enemies ;  what  resemblance  was  there,  then,  between  the  two  cases  ? 
And  lastly,  the  dynasty  of  Antiochus  went  over  immediately  to  his  son  and 
successor,  and  not  into  the  hands  of  the  Medes  and  Persians. 

(4)  '  But  a  man  like  Belshazzar  would  never  have  received  such  an  omi 
nous  prediction  from  the  mouth  of  Daniel,  and  have  rewarded  him  for 


REMARKS  ON  CHAP.  V.  143 

it.     The  whole  thing  is  a  palpable  forgery,  got  up  merely  to  magnify 
Daniel.' 

But  if  what  is  stated  about  the  writing  was  matter  of  fact,  is  there  any 
thing  incredible  in  the  assertion,  that  the  king  was  stricken  with  awful 
terror  ?  It  would  be  little  short  of  miraculous,  if  he  were  not.  As  to  the 
reward,  the  king  had  publicly  and  solemnly  pledged  it,  5:  7  ;  how  could  he 
retreat  from  his  pledge  ?  The  writer  evidently  supposes  the  whole  to  have 
been  matter  of  fact ;  and  on  this  ground  there  is  nothing  incongruous  or 
improbable,  in  his  account  of  Belsliazzar's  conduct.  In  order  to  make  out 
incongruity,  then,  we  must  assume  a  position  directly  opposite  to  that  which 
the  writer  has  assumed. 

(5)  *  But  how  could  the  writing  be  explained,  Daniel  be  promoted  and 
proclaimed  as  third  in  the  government,  and  the  city  be  taken  besides,  all  in 
one  night  ?   Improbable  altogether,  if  not  impossible.' 

Yet,  on  such  an  occasion,  when  the  Magi  beyond  reasonable  doubt  were 
assembled  to  keep  the  feast,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  the  palace,  (for  so  every 
one  must  readily  imagine,  since  they  were  so  often  to  be  consulted),  what 
difficulty  is  there  in  supposing,  that  within  some  eight  or  ten  hours  all  this 
happened  ?  The  time  is  amply  sufficient  for  the  whole  that  was  transacted 
or  took  place.  Officers  ready  for  every  kind  of  duty,  and  in  great  num 
bers,  must  have  been  present  at  the  court,  on  such  an  occasion  as  the  great 
feast. 

(6)  '  But  the  shocking  profanation  of  Belshazzar  !   All  antiquity  fails  to 
supply  us  with  any  such  example.' 

Has  Lengerke,  then,  never  read  the  history  of  what  Cambyses  did  to  the 
gods  in  Egypt,  and  Darius  and  Xerxes  to  those  in  Babylon  ?  Besides,  as 
Belshazzar  was  haughty  and  impious,  it  was  very  natural,  when  heated  with 
wine,  that  he  should  send  for  the  splendid  temple-vessels,  as  evidences  of  his 
magnificence,  and  in  order  to  place  the  God  of  the  Jews  in  a  light  inferior  to 
that  of  his  own.  While  his  conduct  was  indeed  impiety  toward  the  God  of 
Israel,  it  was  probably  deemed  by  himself  and  his  nobles  to  be  an  act  of 
commendable  devotion,  or  at  least  to  be  a  testimony  of  gratitude  to  the 
Babylonish  gods,  who  had  made  the  Chaldeans  to  be  a  victorious  nation. 

(7)  'Daniel  contradicts  himself.  In  v.  17,  he  declines  all  reward  and 
honor  ;  in  v.  27,  he  willingly  receives  both.' 

I  read  both  passages  with  different  feelings.  In  the  first,  Daniel  modestly 
and  humbly  disclaims  any  title  to  reward,  on  the  ground  of  any  service 
which  he  may  render  to  the  king  ;  in  v.  29,  the  king's  command  to  honor 
him  is  obeyed  by  his  servants,  as  we  might  well  expect.  Whether  Daniel 
received  his  promised  rewards  willingly  or  unwillingly,  is  not  said  ;  nor  is 
anything  said  in  the  context,  which  implies  any  desire  on  his  part  to  re 
ceive  them. 

Thus  much  for  the  lighter  weapons  by  which  the  narration  before  us  has 
been  assailed.  Let  us  now  come  to  those  which  appear  to  be  of  a  somewhat 
more  formidable  description.  Lengerke  avows,  at  the  outset  of  his  attack, 
that  the  narration  in  ch.  V.  has  indeed  some  historical  basis  as  to  certain 
facts,  but  that  "  the  whole  story  is  disfigured  and  falsified  by  the  author, 
who  was  neither  an  eye-witness  of  the  occurrences,  nor  accurately  acquaint 
ed  with  the  history  of  them,"  p.  204.  The  falsification  consists  of  several 
particulars  ;  viz.,  1.  The  last  king  of  Babylon  was  not  a  son  of  Nebuchad- 


144  REMARKS  ON  CHAP.  V. 

nezzar.  (2)  His  name  was  not  Belshazzar.  (8)  He  was  not  slain  when 
Babylon  was  taken  by  Cyrus.  (4)  There  was  never  any  such  person  as 
Darius  the  Mede,  who  was  concerned  with  the  taking  of  Babylon,  or  who 
reigned  as  king  over  that  region.  These  allegations  I  shall  now  examine 
in  the  order  stated. 

If  it  be  a  fact,  that  '  the  last  king  of  Babylon  was  not  a  son  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar,'  then,  indeed,  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  real  history  and  the 
narration  before  us;  for  vs.  11,  13,  18,  22,  plainly  assert  this,  and  even 
with  emphasis.  But  it  is  unnecessary,  in  order  to  vindicate  the  assertion  of 
our  text,  to  show  that  he  was  an  immediate  descendant  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
in  the  first  degree.  The  Semitic  use  of  the  word  in  question  goes  far  be 
yond  the  first  degree  of  descent,  and  extends  the  appellation  son  to  the 
designation  of  grandson,  and  even  of  the  most  remote  posterity.  Examples 
of  this  there  are  in  abundance.  In  Ezra  5: 1.  6:  14,  the  prophet  Zechariah 
is  called  the  son  of  Iddo ;  in  Zech.  1:  1,  7,  the  same  person  is  called  the  son 
of  Barachiah  the  son  of  Iddo.  So  Isaiah  threatens  Hezekiah  (39:  7),  that 
the  sons  whom  he  shall  beget  shall  be  conducted  as  exiles  to  Babylon  ;  in 
which  case,  however,  four  generations  intervened  before  this  happened. 
In  Matt.  1:  8,  three  kings  are  omitted  between  Joram  and  Uzziah  (see 
2  Chron.  xxii.  seq.)  ;  yet  Uzziah  (Ozias)  is  called  by  the  evangelist  the  son 
of  Joram,  (the  language  is  :  "Joram  begat  Ozias").  So  in  Matt.  1: 1,  "Je 
sus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham."  And  so  we  speak,  every 
day,  e.  g.  "  The  sons  of  Adam ;  the  sons  of  Abraham  ;  the  sons  of  Israel ; 
the  sons  of  the  Pilgrims,"  and  the  like.  So  Ges.  Lex.  "  *$ ,  films,  nepos,pos~ 
teri."  If  then  Belshazzar  was  a  descendant  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  it  is  enough 
fully  to  vindicate  the  language.  Nor  is  it  of  importance  to  its  vindication, 
whether  he  was  a  son  in  the  male  or  female  line  of  descent.  The  appella 
tion  could  be  applied  in  either  case  with  entire  propriety,  according  to  He 
brew  usage. 

To  disprove  the  sonship  now  in  question,  an  appeal  is  made  to  Berosus 
(in  Joseph,  cont.  Apion.  I.  20),  who  says  of  the  last  king,  whom  he  calls  Na 
bonnidos,  that  the  conspirators  who  had  destroyed  the  young  king  Laboro- 
soarchod,  "invested  Nabonnidos  with  the  sovereignty, tivl  iwv  iv.  fiv.fivl.Mvoq, 
OVTI  Ix  Trig  tti>r;Js  tJiiffVffTotffews,  i.  e.  a  certain  personage  who  was  a  Babylo 
nian,  and  of  the  same  faction."  This  passage  shows  that  Nabonnidos  did  not  be 
long  to  the  regular  line  of  the  heirs  apparent ;  for  the  king  that  had  just  been 
destroyed  was  a  mere  child  (nral?),  and  had  no  progeny  ;  but  at  the  same 
time,  it  does  not  inform  us  what  was  the  real  rank  or  previous  condition  of 
the  new  usurper.  Something  peculiar  must  have  recommended  him  to  the 
choice  of  his  fellow-conspirators.  In  case  now  that  he  was  a  descendant  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  in  a,  female  line,  he  had  no  legal  right  to  the  throne,  which 
could  be  claimed  only  by  sons  and  their  progeny.  But  his  origin  of  course 
would  procure  for  him  a  place  of  distinction,  and  if  he  was  ambitious,  ( which 
seems  highly  probable  from  his  course  of  conduct),  such  a  distinction  would 
be  likely  to  gain  for  him  a  precedence.  At  all  events,  what  Berosus  says, 
extends  only  to  a  denial  of  regal  right,  but  not  to  a  denial  that  Nabonnidos 
was  in  any  way  related  to  Nebuchadnezzar. 

But  the  main  reliance  is  placed  on  the  testimony  of  Abydenus,  (pre 
served  in  Euseb.  Praep.  Evangel.  IX.  40,  41,  and  also  in  Euseb.  Chron. 
Armen.  I.  c.  10).  Abydenus  appeals  to  and  quotes  Megasthenes  as  his 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V.  145 

authority,  who  says,  that  "  Labassoracus  (Laborosoarchod)  being  de 
stroyed  by  violence,  they  made  Nabonnidochus  /Jwtnyle'a,  nQoayxovia  ol 
ovddv,  i.  e.  king,  having  no  claim  to  this  rank,"  or  they  bestowed  on  him  "  a 
kingly  office  not  belonging  at  all  to  him.'1  I  can  find  now  in  this  assertion, 
no  more  than  I  find  in  that  of  Berosus,  viz.  a  denial  of  right  to  the  throne 
according  to  the  usual  law  of  descent.  So  much  I  would  readily  concede ; 
but  this  surely  does  not  amount  to  a  contradiction  of  the  statement,  that  Bel- 
shazzar  was  a  descendant  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

Is  there  then  any  evidence  that  he  was  such  a  descendant,  besides  the 
declarations  of  our  text  ?  There  is.  Herodotus,  after  describing  the  famous 
queen  Nitocris,  says :  "  Cyrus  conducted  his  army  against  the  son  of  this 
woman,  whose  name  was  Labynetus,(  the  same  with  that  of  his  father),  and 
who  ruled  over  the  Assyrians"  [Babylonians]  ;  I.  188.  .  In  another  pas 
sage  (I.  77),  Herodotus  says, that"  Labynetus  ruled  over  the  Babylonians," 
when  Croesus  sent  to  them  for  aid  against  Cyrus.  In  I.  74,  the  same  au 
thor  represents  Labynetus  of  Babylon  as  one  of  the  party,  who  helped  to 
conciliate  Cyaxares  I.  of  Media  and  the  Lydians.  Here  Nebuchadnezzar 
is  undoubtedly  meant ;  as  Prideaux,  Wesseling,  Beloe,  and  Bahr,  all  agree. 
This  last  passage  explains  the  first  quotation,  where  "  Labynetus  is  said  to 
have  the  same  name  with  his  father"  [Nebuchadnezzar]  ;  and  it  shows  in 
all  probability,  as  Bahr  remarks  (Comm.  in  Herod.  I.  188),  that  the  name 
is  a  title  of  honor  or  office,  rather  than  a  proper  name.  The  same  remark 
may  well  be  made  of  various  other  names  which  were  common  in  Persia, 
Media,  and  Babylon.  Different  names  of  the  kings  of  these  countries,  as 
we  shall  soon  see,  is  one  of  the  weakest  of  all  arguments  to  prove  a  differ 
ence  of  persons. 

Herodotus  was  born  about  GO  years  after  Babylon  was  taken  by  Cyrus. 
He  travelled  thither  in  the  height  of  his  strength,  and  had  an  opportunity 
to  know  respecting  a  matter  so  recent  as  this.  The  testimony  of  Berosus 
and  Abydenus,  (or  rather  of  Megasthenes),  is  later  than  his,  by  a  century 
and  a  half  or  two  centuries.  Berosus  was  probably  a  native  of  Babylon  ; 
but  Megasthenes  was  a  Greek,  and  of  far  inferior  authority,  compared  with 
Herodotus,  in  such  circumstances.* 

I  am  aware  that  Hoffman,  (Weissag.  and  Erfiill.  I.  s.  296),  and  Haver- 
nick  (Neue  krit.  Untersuch.  s.  72  seq.),  in  accordance  with  the  suggestions 
of  some  earlier  writers,  suppose  the  Belshazzar  of  ch.  V.  to  have  been  Evil 

*  BEROSUS  was  a  Chaldean  priest  of  Belus.  at  Babylon,  in  the  time  of  Alexan 
der  the  Great  and  his  successors,  who  wrote  the  History  of  the  Chaldeans,  from  which 
the  extracts  in  Josephus,  Eusebius,  and  other  writers,  are  taken.  The  rest  of  his 
works  have  perished.  Richter's  edition  of  his  Remains  (1825)  has  put  on  a  good 
footing  the  credit  of  the  Chaldee  writer,  his  history  of  the  fabulous  ages  alone  ex- 
cepted.  It  is  said  that  he  drew  from  the  records  in  the  temple  of  Belus.  ABYDENUS 
wrote  a  history  of  Assyria ;  but  his  age  has  not  been  ascertained.  It  is  certain  that 
he  lived  after  MEGASTHENES,  whose  age  we  know  to  have  been  that  of  Seleucus  Ni- 
cator,  i.  e.  312 — 280  B.  C. ;  for  Abydenus  often  appeals  to  Megasthenes,  as  in  the 
passage  above  quoted.  But  both  he  and  Megasthenes  are  of  secondary  authority, 
for  both  are  Greeks,  who  wrote  long  after  the  events  in  question.  The  authority  of 
Berosus,  as  to  Chaldean  affairs,  is  deservedly  in  higher  repute.  See  Kichter,  Beros. 
p.  35,  seq. 

13 


146  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V. 

Merodach,  the  immediate  successor  and  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  that  a 
considerable  interval  of  time  took  place  between  the  death  of  Belshazzar 
and  the  occupation  of  the  throne  by  Darius  the  Mede.  But  of  this  I  cannot 
feel  persuaded.  Such  is  the  connection  of  5:  29  with  6:  1,  and  of  both  these 
with  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  inscription  on  the  wall,  that  they  cannot 
be  separated  without  violence.  If  dissevered,  in  accordance  with  the  views 
of  those  critics,  how  can  it  be  accounted  for  that  6:  1  begins  with  a  1  con 
junctive,  lEI^T!  ?  Or  how,  that  no  time  is  either  named  or  alluded  to, 
when  Darius  took  the  kingdom  ?  We  should  confidently  expect  a  designa 
tion  of  time,  if  the  writer  did  not  suppose  it  to  be  designated  by  what  he  had 
already  said.  If  such  an  exegesis,  therefore,  be  not  impossible,  it  seems  on 
every  ground  of  philology  to  be  improbable.  See  Vitringa,  Observatt.  Sac. 
V.  19,  where  he  has  fully  refuted  Stanley  (in  Eschyl.  Pers.  p.  776),  who 
has  broached  the  same  opinion  that  I  have  stated  above.  Whatever  diffi 
culties  may  result  from  the  natural  exegesis  of  the  text,  it  is  better  to  meet 
them  fairly,  than  to  get  rid  of  them  by  a  forced  interpretation. 

At  all  events,  (and  I  make  the  remark  both  for  present  and  future  use), 
the  testimony  of  the  Hebrews  respecting  matters  of  such  a  nature  as  that 
before  us,  is  entitled  to  much  higher  regard  than  that  of  the  Greeks.  The 
Hebrews  were  at  and  near  Babylon,  in  their  exile  ;  they  were  there  when 
the  city  was  taken  ;  large  numbers  of  them  continued  to  live  there  until 
Babylon  was  in  ruins.  Even  if  the  book  of  Daniel  was  written  in  Macca- 
baean  times,  its  being  of  a  Jewish  source  would,  caeteris  paribus,  give  it 
higher  authority  than  one  from  a  Grecian  source.  The  Greeks  in  general 
knew  little  indeed  of  Middle  Asia,  until  after  the  conquests  of  Alexander 
the  Great. 

2.  '  The  name  Belshazzar  is  a  mistaken  one.  The  name  of  the  last  king 
was  Nabonned.  The  writer  has  given  us  a  mere  figment  instead  of  a  real 
name.' 

The  internal  evidence,  however,  seems  to  be  against  this  ;  for  the  com 
position  of  the  name  is  of  the  true  Chaldee  stamp;  see  on  5:  1.  But  to 
argue  from  any  one  name  of  an  oriental  prince,  that  he  has  no  other  names, 
ought  to  be  the  last  thing  that  any  one  well  informed  in  these  matters  should 
undertake.  Let  us  examine  a  few  cases.  The  father  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
is  usually  called  Nabopolassar ;  but  Josephus  has  Nabolassar;  and  in  Chron. 
Euseb.  Arm.  the  Latin  has  Nabopalsarus.  Nebuchadnezzar  is  also  Nebuchad 
rezzar,  and  in  Ptolemy  (Can.),  Nabocolassar.  Belshazzar  is  called  by 
Berosus,  Nabonnidos ;  by  Herodotus,  Labynetus ;  by  Abydenus,  Nabanni- 
dochus ;  by  Ptolemy,  Nabonadios  ;  by  Syncellus  (in  exxA^a.  (rrot/.  p.  393  ed. 
Dind.),  Nabonadios,  Astyages,  Darius  of  Ahasuerus,  and  Artaxerxes  ;  (in 
p.  431)  Nabonnedus,  Darius,  Astyages  of  Ahasuerus;  (p.  436)  Neriglesa- 
ros,  the  Baltasar  (Belshazzar)  of  Daniel.  The  younger  son  of  Cyrus,  Ta- 
nyoxarces  or  Tanaoxanes,  is  called  Smerdis  by  Herodotus  ;  by  Justin  (after 
Trogus),  Merdis;  by  Aeschylus,  Mardos;  by  Ctesias,  Sphendadates ;  in 
Scripture,  Artashashta  (Heb.).  It  would  be  easy  to  extend  this  list  much 
further,  but  I  deem  it  superfluous.  I  would  merely  add,  that  Belshazzar 
bears  marks  of  being  a  mere  appellation  or  title  of  honor.  And  the  same 
may  be  said  of  Darius,  in  6: 1.  The  Lex.  will  show,  that  the  corresponding 
Persian  noun,  from  which  this  Heb.  or  Chaldee-formed  name  comes,  means 
king ;  see  Ges.  Lex.  s.  v.  izwn .  In  this  way  we  perceive,  that  there  is  no 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V.  147 

difficulty  in  harmonizing  the  Cyaxares  of  Xenophon  with  the  Darius  of 
Daniel.  The  latter  is  distinguished  by  the  appellation  Wfyz  ,  the  Mede,  both 
words  signifying  the  Median  king ,  6: 1;  and  also  by  £"hV:;nx~"|2  in  9:  1,  i.e. 
the  son.  of  Ahasuerus.  Of  course  these  adjunct  names  answer  the  purpose 
of  making  the  common  appellative  Darius  (king)  specific. 

3.  '  Belshazzar  was  not  slain  at  the  capture  of  Babylon,  as  Daniel  asserts, 
but  escaped  and  was  treated  with  great  lenity  by  the  conqueror.' 

Here  Herodotus  deserts  us,  not  having  said  a  word  about  the  king  or  his 
fate,  at  the  capture  of  the  city.  Ctesias  also  deserts  us,  since,  in  his  Persicq, 
he  says  nothing  even  of  the  invasion  and  subjugation  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  ; 
which  is  passing  strange.  But  Berosus  represents  Nabonnedos,  '  after  a 
defeat  before  the  walls  of  Babylon,  as  flying  to  Borsippus,  and  there  giving 
himself  up  to  Cyrus,  who  treated  him  humanely,  and  sent  him  to  Carmania, 
where  he  spent  the  remainder  of  his  life  ;'  Richter,  Beros.  p.  69.  Jos.  cont. 
Ap.  I.  19,  20.  Euseb.  Praep.  Evang.  IX.  40.  In  Euseb.  Chron.  Arm.  I.  10 
and  Praep.  Ev.  IX.  41,  we  have  also  the  narration  of  Abydenus,  who  says : 
"  Cyrus,  after  taking  Babylon,  sent  him  [Nabonned]  to  be  governor  of  Car 
.mania,  KaQ^uui'i^g  rj/tuoiluv  ditigswiu.  In  narrating  the  fact  that  the  las 
king  was  spared,  there  is  an  agreement,  then,  between  these  two  writers 
but  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  king,  banished  from  his  capital,  they 
disagree,  although  one  does  not  contradict  the  other.  Berosus  says  nothing 
of  the  new  office  of  Nabonned,  which  Abydenus  expressly  mentions.  That 
Abydenus  often  borrows  from  Berosus,  is,  I  believe,  generally  conceded. 
We  are  therefore  at  a  loss,  whether  it  comes  only  from  one  witness,  or  is 
derived  from  two  independent  sources. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  Xenophon,  in  his  circumstantial  history  of 
the  capture  of  Babylon,  in  full  agreement  with  Daniel ;  and  besides  this, 
there  are  various  passages  in  the  O.  Test,  prophets,  which  accord  entirely 
with  the  same  view.  One  might  indeed  almost  argue  a  priori  for  the  proba 
bility  of  the  scriptural  account,  when  he  had  once  made  himself  acquainted 
with  the  thirst  of  vengeance  that  was  in  the  minds  of  Gobryas  and  Gadatas, 
who  led  on  the  storming-party  of  Cyrus ;  Cyrop.  VII.  5.  24,  30  seq.  The 
probability  that  Cyrus  (according  to  Abydenus)  would  make  such  an  ene 
my  as  Belshazzar  the  satrap  or  subordinate  king  of  Carmania,  a  powerful 
province  and  not  far  distant,  seems  quite  small,  to  say  the  least.  But  pass 
ing  by  all  this,  we  have  to  adjust  the  balance  between  Berosus  and  Abydenus 
on  the  one  side,  and  Xenophon  and  Daniel  and  the  Heb.  prophets  on  the 
other.  The  histories  of  the  first  two  are  merely  skeletons  ;  but  Xenophon 
is  full  and  circumstantial ;  Daniel  is  brief  but  unequivocally  direct ;  and  the 
Prophets  seem  to  agree  fully  with  his  view.  In  respect  to  these  last  wit 
nesses,  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  Isa.  21:  2 — 9.  Isa.  14:  9 — 21,  specially 
vs.  18 — 20.  Comp.  Jer.  50:  29 — 35.  51:  57.  I  am  fully  aware,  that  poetical 
descriptions  of  this  nature  are  not  to  be  urged  to  the  letter ;  but  the  posi 
tion  that  the  king  and  nobles  of  Babylon  will  fall,  in  the  attack  of  the  storming- 
party  who  capture  the  city,  seems  to  me  deeply  imbedded  in  the  language 
of  the  prophets.  If  the  Literalists  insist  on  the  lateness  of  these  compositions, 
so  much  the  worse  for  their  cause ;  for  how  could  late  writers  take  such  a 
position,  i.  e.  assume  the  death  of  the  king  to  be  true,  in  case  notorious  facts 
contradicted  it  ? 

This  is  all  the  testimony  we  have   respecting  the  matter  before  us,  which 


148  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V. 

is  worth  canvassing.  All  that  is  later,  is  merely  a  repetition  of  what  had 
already  been  said.  In  regard  to  the  point  before  us,  then,  we  are  left  in  a 
predicament,  like  to  that  in  which  we  find  ourselves  with  respect  to  many 
others  that  are  concerned  with  early  Oriental  history.  Herodotus  and  Cte- 
sias,  on  whom  we  principally  depend  for  a  knowledge  of  these  matters,  with 
the  exception  of  some  scriptural  notices,  leave  us  here  entirely  destitute  of 
aid  ;  and  even  if  they  afforded  any  information,  in  all  probability  it  might 
be,  as  most  of  their  other  history  of  these  times  (specially  that  of  Cyrus) 
undoubtedly  is,  of  such  a  nature  as  to  present  us  with  real  contradictions 
and  irreconcilable  and  inexplicable  difficulties.  Xenophon  and  the  Bible, 
which  last  includes  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  and  Daniel,  are  witnesses  of  a  differ 
ent  character.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  Xenophon's  writing  romance,  it  is 
.at  least  plain  and  clear,  that  he  is  free  from  the  superstition  and  credulity 
of  many  heathen  writers,  and  that  in  all  his  works,  no  attempt  can  be  met 
with  to  confound  the  mythic,  the  fabulous,  and  the  absurd,  with  the  plain 
and  sober  history  of  facts. 

The  reasonable  decision  of  the  question,  then,  which  respects  the  death  of 
Belshazzar  when  Babylon  was  taken  by  assault,  lies  within  a  narrow  com 
pass  :  Which  of  these  classes  of  witnesses  is  entitled  to  the  most  credit  ? 
Berosus  and  Abydenus,  the  latter  of  whom  is  clearly  an  inferior  and  secon 
dary  witness,  or  Xenophon,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Daniel  ?  The  great  por 
tion  of  critics  have  said  and  still  say,  that  the  latter  must  have  the  prefer 
ence  ;  and  with  them  I  heartily  concur.  The  allegations  made  against  the 
.credit  of  Xenophon,  as  to  his  Cyropedia,  in  order  to  avoid  this  conclusion, 
1  shall  touch  upon,  at  the  close  of  this  discussion.  In  the  mean  time,  in  a 
matter  of  this  kind,  where  the  great  mass  of  critics,  (the  liberal  ones  in 
cluded),  have  adopted  the  conclusion  to  which,  after  much  investigation,  I 
have  felt  compelled  to  come,  it  is  matter  both  of  surprise  and  regret  to  see 
the  confident  air  and  hear  the  sarcastic  tone  of  Lengerke,  who  adopts  the 
conclusion,  that  both  Daniel  and  Xenophon  have  either  falsified  the  whole 
matter,  or  wrote  in  utter  ignorance  of  the  true  state  of  things.  Quite  differ 
ent  is  the  course  which  Gesenius,  Winer,  Knobel,  and  other  Liberalits, 
have  pursued. 

4.  '  No  such  person  as  Darius  the  Mede  cooperated  in  the  taking  of  Baby 
lon,  nor  did  any  such  person  reign  there,  after  the  deposition  of  Belshazzar.' 
Here  Lengerke  is  most  confident  of  all.  The  appeal  is  made  to  Herodo 
tus  and  Ctesias,  both  of  whom  conclude  the  Median  empire  with  Astyages. 
the  grandfather  of  Cyrus,  according  to  Xenophon  (Cyrop.  I.  3)  and  Herodo 
tus  (I.  107,  108),  but  according  to  Ctesias  (Persica  §  2)  not  at  all  related 
to  him.  The  account  of  Herodotus  is,  that  Cyrus  with  the  Persians  threw 
off  the  yoke  of  the  Medes,  attacked  and  deposed  Astyages  his  father-in- 
law,  and  kept  him  prisoner  until  his  death,  when  Cyrus  succeeded  him 
in  his  authority ;  Herod.  I.  127 — 130.  Ctesias  represents  the  matter  dif 
ferently  in  some  respects :  '  Cyrus  was  not  related  to  Astyages  ;  he  gave 
him  his  personal  liberty  ;  married  his  daughter ;  and  finally,  that  Astyages, 
being  sent  for  by  Cyrus  and  his  wife,  was  left  to  perish  in  a  desert  by  the 
servant  by  whom  the  invitation  was  sent  !  (Ctes.  Pers.  §  2.  §  5)  ;  and 
with  him  ended  the  Median  empire.  Berosus  says  nothing  of  any  other  king 
except  Cyrus,  when  he  mentions  the  capture  of  Babylon  (Jos.  c.  Apion. 
I.  20.  Eichter,  p.  69)  ;  and  Abydenus  fails  us  here  also,  as  reported  in  Eu- 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V.  149 

seb.  Chron.  Armen.  1. 10.  3,  unless  we  understand  the  Darius  mentioned  in 
the  same  passage  of  Eusebius  as  meaning  the  same  person  as  Darius  the 
Mede  —  "a  Dario  autem  rege  eadem  provincia  pulsus  est"  [viz.  Nabonedo- 
chus].  This  clause  is  wanting  in  the  extract  from  Abydenus,  in  Euseb. 
Praep.  IX.  41,  and  appears  to  be  merely  the  opinion  of  Eusebius,  or  per 
haps  it  was  added  by  the  Armenian  translator.  But  however  this  may  be,  I 
am  disposed  to  believe  (with  Leng.  p.  217),  that  the  Darius  here  named 
was  Darius  Hystaspis ;  although  I  perceive  that  Gesenius  (in  Thes.  Heb. 
s.  v.  tfj'p^)  applies  the  name  to  the  Darius  of  Daniel. 

We  have  then  the  declarations  of  Herodotus  and  Ctesias  that  Cyrus  made 
war  upon  Astyages,  took  him  captive,  and  then  reigned  over  Media  ;  and 
our  other  witnesses,  Berosus  and  Abydenus  are  wholly  silent  as  to  the  ter 
mination  of  the  Median  empire.  The  appeal  to  later  writers,  such  as  Dio- 
nysius  Hal.,  Justin,  Strabo,  Diodorus  Sic.,  and  the  History  of  Bel,  which 
Lengerke  makes,  is  out  of  place,  because  it  is  the  mere  echo  of  the  earlier 
writers  just  named.  What  have  we  then  to  oppose  to  this  ?  We  have  the 
whole  Cyropedia  throughout ;  for  from  the  outset  (I.  5.  2),  the  formal  his 
tory  is  begun  of  Astyages'  death  and  of  Cyaxares  as  his  son  and  successor  ; 
and  the  history  of  this  last  personage  is  not  dropped,  until  we  come  almost 
to  the  very  close  of  the  Cyropedia.  Cyaxares  is  presented  as  giving  his 
daughter  in  marriage  to  Cyrus,  and  making  his  kingdom  her  dowry.  Of 
these  particulars  the  Scriptures  say  nothing,  inasmuch  as  it  was  not  their 
object,  and  they  make  no  attempt  to  give  the  history  of  Persia.  But  that 
Cyrus  was  the  successor  of  Darius  the  Mede,  is  plainly  developed  in  5:  30. 
6:  1.  9:  1.  11:  1,  comp.  10:  1.  1:  21.  That  Astyages  cannot  be  meant  by  the 
Darius  in  question,  seems  evident  from  the  fact,  that  he  died  long  before  the 
taking  of  Babylon. 

Here  then  we  have  to  adjust  our  balance  as  before.  That  the  testimony 
is  apparently  contradictory,  no  one  can  hesitate  to  say.  Is  it  in  reality  so  ? 
This  question  deserves  a  moment's  consideration. 

The  first  thing,  then,  to  be  inquired  after  is  :  Whether  either  Herodo 
tus  or  Ctesias  designed,  or  even  pretended,  to  give  a  complete  history 
of  Media,  Persia,  or  Babylon  ?  It  is  easy  to  answer  this  question.  The 
works  of  both  are  compilations  of  historical  anecdotes  and  interesting  stories ; 
they  are  really  that  and  nothing  more.  To  use  the  words  of  Gesenius,  a 
critic  in  such  matters  of  very  high  rank  :  "  Passing  by  men  of  moderate  tal 
ents,  Herodotus  is  wont  merely  to  mention  one  and  another  in  a  long  series 
of  kings,  who  has  rendered  himself  more  eminent.  His  history  of  Babylon, 
as  well  as  other  matters,  shows  this  ;  in  which  he  mentions  merely  the  queen 
Nitocris,  and  her  son  Labynetus  [Belshazzar],  passing  in  silence  all  other 
kings,  not  excepting  even  Nebuchadnezzar  himself;"  Thes.  Heb.  s.  v. 
Wjnn1-!  .  Nothing  is  plainer  to  the  critical  reader,  than  the  correctness  of 
this  judgment.  If  it  is  not  equally  applicable  to  Ctesias,  it  is  in  a  great 
measure  so  ;  witness  his  total  omission  in  the  life  of  Cyrus,  of  his  conquest 
of  Babylon,  which  was  the  most  signal  act  of  his  whole  life.  The  argu- 
mentum  ex  silentio,  rarely  of  much  value,  would,  in  respect  to  these  histori 
ans,  be  little  short  of  •  an  absurdity.  That  they  have  omitted  Cyaxares  or 
Darius  the  Mede,  is  most  probably  owing  to  his  insignificance  either  as  a 
king  or  as  a  general.  In  all  his  long  wars  in  Asia  Minor,  Cyrus,  his  ally,  '< 
was  the  actual  commander  in  chief — the  real  Executive  of  the  army.  In  the 

13* 


150  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V. 

attack  upon  Babylon,  Cyaxares  was  not  even  present ;  for  he  preferred  the 
enervating  pleasures  of  his  palace,  to  an  active  and  military  life.  Cyrus 
did  all  in  taking  the  city  ;  he  made  all  the  arrangements  after  the  capture  ; 
but  the  supremacy  was  still  theoretically  retained  by  Darius,  and  conceded 
to  him  by  Cyrus.  In  the  very  last  book  of  the  Cyropedia,  we  have  the 
account  of  Cyrus'  visit  to  Cyaxares,  after  the  splendid  conquest  of  Babylon  ; 
on  which  occasion  the  Median  king  gave  him  his  daughter  to  wife,  and  his 
kingdom  for  her  dowry.  Lengerke,  in  order  to  show  that  Cyaxares  is  a 
mere  phantom,  alleges  that  all  the  arrangements  were  made  by  Cyrus,  at 
Babylon,  "  in  a  kingly  manner."  True  enough  ;  but  it  so  happens,  that 
these,  with  the  exception  of  such  as  pertained  to  military  occupation  and 
safety,  were  made  after  Cyrus  had  received  his  dowry,  and  not  before.  I 
know  of  no  ancient  composition  that  affords  an  analogy  which  will  warrant 
the  supposition,  that  the  Cyropedia  is  a  book  of  pure  romance,  like  many  of 
our  modern  novels.  Fabulous  legends  of  gods,  and  demigods,  and  heroes,  are 
indeed  abundant,  but  the  whole  scope,  character,  and  design  of  these,  are  en 
tirely  different  from  those  of  a  regular  didactic  romance.  Nor  can  it  well  be 
shown,  that  the  plan  of  a  romance,  in  which  the  model  of  a  wise  and  brave 
prince  should  be  exhibited,  demanded  at  all  the  introduction  of  such  a 
character  as  that  of  Cyaxares.  Something  indeed  might  be  gained  on  the 
score  of  contrast  between  him  and  Cyrus ;  but  if  this  was  the  main  object 
of  the  writer,  he  has  failed  to  give  much  efficacy  to  his  production,  since 
Cyaxares  is  of  too  mixed  a  character  to  make  the  contrast  very  striking. 
If  it  was  true,  that  Cyrus  was  at  that  time  king  of  the  Medes,  and  this  by 
succeeding  Astyages  directly,  would  it  not  have  made  the  picture  of  the 
former  more  striking  and  magnificent,  had  Xenophon  presented  him  in 
that  light,  and  still  as  exercising  great  moderation  and  humanity  ? 

On  the  whole,  the  direct  evidence  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  Xenophon  to 
the  reality  of  a  Median  king  between  Astyages  and  Cyrus,  seems  to  me 
very  decidedly  to  outweigh  the  accounts  given  by  Herodotus  and  Ctesias  in 
respect  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which  Cyrus  became  king  of  Media  and 
Persia.  Herodotus  himself  states,  that  there  were  three  other  different  ac 
counts  of  Cyrus'  life  and  actions  besides  that  which  he  gives,  and  that 
he  merely  adopts  the  one  which  seemed  to  him  the  more  probable  ;  I.  95. 
At  any  rate  the  story  of  Ctesias,  which  not  improbably  is  one  of  those  three, 
is  very  different  from  his  ;  Xenophon  differs  widely  from  both  ;  and  Aeschy 
lus,  in  his  Persae,  appears  to  follow  another  account  differing  from  all  these. 
As  the  narration  of  Xenophon  presents  us  with  no  mythical  legends,  and 
no  absurdities  or  impossibilities,  it  has,  in  this  respect,  greatly  the  advantage 
over  those  of  his  rivals,  specially  over  that  of  Herodotus. 

I  venture  another  remark  here,  respecting  a  circumstance  which  I  have 
not  seen  fully  illustrated.  If  well  founded,  it  serves  to  confirm  the  conclu 
sion  to  which  we  have  arrived.  It  is  this,  viz.,  that  the  biblical  writers  seem 
to  accord  well  with  that  view  of  the  subject  before  us,  to  which  we  have 
given  the  preference.  In  Daniel  throughout  we  have  the  phraseology, 
Medes  and  Persians,  showing,  by  this  order  of  the  words,  that  the  Medes 
take  the  lead;  Dan.  5:  28.  6:  9  (8).  8:  20.  In  Est.  10:  2  is  the  same  order, 
because  ancient  Chronicles  are  there  referred  to,  in  which  the  Medes  have 
the  precedence.  So  great  indeed  was  the  preeminence  of  the  Medes,  in 
earlier  -times,  that  the  prophets  who  foretold  the  destruction  of  Babylon, 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V.  151 

sometimes  make  use  of  only  the  name  of  the  Medes,  in  order  to  designate 
the  invaders,  Isa.  13:  17.  Jer.  51:  11.  In  Jet.  25:  25,  "  the  kings  of  Elam 
(Persia),  and  the  kings  of  the  Medes"  are  mentioned  as  about  to  be  in 
vaded  by  Nebuchadnezzar ;  the  expression  here  being  merely  descriptive 
of  the  two  countries  with  their  rulers,  and  in  the  order  of  their  local  prox 
imity.  In  like  way  is  Elam  (Persia)  mentioned  alone  in  Jer.  49:  34,  where 
threatening  against  her  is  uttered  ;  and  so  "  province  of  the  Medes"  means 
the  country  of  Media,  in  Ezra  6:  2  and  2  K.  17:  6.  In  Isa.  21:  2,  the  prophet 
calls  upon  both  Persia  and  Media  to  march  forth  to  the  destruction  of  Baby 
lon.  Beyond  a  doubt  he  regarded  them  as  associated  for  the  purpose  of 
attack.  But  this  is  the  only  passage,  in  the  older  writings,  where  Persia 
(Elam)  is  put  before  Media.  We  cannot  lay  much  stress  on  the  position 
of  the  words  in  this  case,  however,  because  in  a  poetical  composition  such  as 
Isa.  xxi,  assonance  with  the  ^3?  which  precedes,  seems  to  be  the  obvious  rea 
son  for  placing  Db^s  immediately  after  it.  On  the  contrary,  when  Ahasue- 
rus  (Xerxes)  is  on  the  throne  of  Persia,  we  have  (and  very  naturally)  the 
order  of  names  thus  :  "  Persia  and  Media;"  see  Est.  1:  1, 14, 18, 19.  The 
like  to  this  indeed  is  to  be  found  in  the  book  of  Daniel  itself;  for  we  have 
Darius  the  Mede  6:  1  (5:  31).  9:  1.  11:  1;  while  Cyrus,  his  successor,  is  not 
called  king  of  the  Medes,  but  Cyrus  king  of  Persia.  Throughout  the  Scrip 
tures,  then,  usage  as  to  names  is  conformed  to  the  state  of  facts.  This,  on 
the  whole,  seems  to  be  one  of  those  accidental  circumstances,  which  casts 
strong  light  on  the  truthfulness  of  the  narration  before  us.  If,  at  the  taking 
of  Babylon,  the  Medes  were  not  the  leading  and  paramount  power,  how 
comes  it  that  Isa.  13:  17  and  Jer.  51:  11,  speak  of  them  only?  But  all  is 
plain  and  obvious,  when  the  accounts  of  Daniel  and  Xenophon  are  admitted. 

That  such  an  admission  has  been  general,  even  Lengerke  himself  concedes, 
p.  21 9.  Thus,  in  ancient  times,  Josephus,  Jerome,  Polychronius  (in  his  Comm.); 
in  modern,  Venema,  Vitringa,  Grotius,  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Bertholdt,  Jahn, 
Heeren,  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  and  the  leading  men  among  the  Libe- 
ralists  themselves,  viz.  Rosenmueller,  Gesenius,  Winer  (often  and  most 
pointedly  in  his  Bib.  Lex.),  and  Knobel.  Few,  indeed,  have  ventured  upon 
the  experiment  of  denying  the  conclusion  which  has  been  stated  above. 
But  Lengerke  is  more  in  earnest  than  most  of  his  compeers,  to  destroy  the 
credit  of  the  book  of  Daniel.  Delenda  est  Carthago  seems  to  be  the  motto 
on  his  standard ;  and  what  cannot  be  accomplished  in  one  way,  must  needs 
be  accomplished  in  another. 

So  much  has  recently  been  said  and  written  on  the  romantic  character  of 
Xenophon's  Cyropedia,  and  on  the  superior  credit  due  to  Herodotus,  Cte- 
sias,  and  Berosus,  that  it  seems  to  be  necessary  here  to  subjoin  a  few  con 
siderations  which  may  help  to  cast  a  stronger  light  on  the  results  of  the  pre 
ceding  discussion. 

That  the  Cyropedia  is  a  mere  and  simple  historical  narrative  in  all  its  parts 
and  specifications,  no  intelligent  critical  reader  can  for  a  moment  believe. 
That  Xenophon  had  a  politico-didactic  object  in  view,  when  he  wrote  the  book 
in  question,  cannot  be  reasonably  denied.  To  this  end,  very  much,  nay  even 
most,  of  what  he  says  is  directed.  He  meant  to  teach  rulers  how  to  be  good, 
wise,  and  brave.  But  how  came  he,  at  a  period  when  Greece  was  still  filled 
with  the  most  bitter  reminiscences  of  Persia  and  oriental  invasions,  to  choose 
the  hero  of  his  work  from  that  feared  and  hated  country  ?  This  can  be 


152  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V. 

reasonably  accounted  for  on  no  other  ground,  than  that  Cyrus  was  an  emi 
nent  character,  and  indeed  a  very  different  man  from  him  whose  portrait 
is  sketched  by  Herodotus  and  Ctesias.  Xenophon  had  his  account,  doubt 
less,  from  Cyrus  the  younger,  with  whom  he  was  united,  or  from  others  in 
his  army ;  and  he  has  given  us  the  Persian  story  respecting  the  first  Cyrus. 
Herodotus,  (who  appears  never  to  have  been  in  Persia,  see  Blum,  Herod,  and 
Ctes.  p.  63  seq.),  has  given  us  the  Median  story;  and  Ctesias  took  his  ac 
count,  as  he  tells  us,  from  the  /?a(TiXtx«t  di(p&£Qai,  .  .  .  X«T«  Tiva  vo^iov  avv- 
TETa/jUeVat  (Diod.  Sic.  II.  32),  i.  e.  the  regal  histories  composed  in  a  kind  of 
measure,  or,  in  other  words,  the  Book  of  Kings  poetically  written ;  like  the 
Shah  Nameh  of  Firdusi  in  the  modern  Persian,  which  is  professedly  taken 
from  the  public  records;  see  Blum,  Herod,  und  Ctesias.  s.  120  seq.,  and 
Malcolm's  Sketches  of  Persia,  chap.  XII.  Whether  this  King-book  of  Cte 
sias  was  Persian  or  Median,  might  be  doubted.  But  be  that  as  it  may, 
Xenophon,  with  his  nice  discernment  and  taste,  cannot  be  supposed  to  have 
chosen  a  hero  whose  character  was  in  bad  odor  among  the  Greeks  ;  and 
such  must  have  been  the  case,  provided  the  Greeks  generally  gave  cre 
dence  to  the  accounts  of  Herodotus  and  Ctesias.  The  very  fact  of  his 
making  such  a  selection,  shows  that  different  views  were  current  among 
his  countrymen  ;  and-at  all  events  we  know  that  the  credit  of  Ctesias  was 
very  low  among  them. 

That  Xenophon,  in  pursuit  of  his  special  object,  has  thrown  around  the 
main  figures  of  his  picture  a  great  variety  of  drapery,  which  is  merely  acci 
dental,  or  rather,  which  is  the  production  merely  of  his  own  inventive  and 
luxuriant  imagination,  there  cannot  be  a  shadow  of  doubt.  The  book  is 
filled  with  conversations,  harangues,  communications  by  letter  or  mandate, 
and  the  like.  Indeed  these  make  a  large  part  of  it,  and  constitute  by  far 
the  most  interesting  and  instructive  portions  of  the  work.  Who  would 
think,  for  a  moment,  of  giving  historical  reality  to  all  these  ?  Some  apo 
thegms,  witty  or  wise  sayings,  striking  repartees,  and  the  like,  tradition 
may  in  fact  have  preserved ;  for  this  is  usual  in  respect  to  distinguished 
men  after  their  death.  All  that  calls  for  remark  in  respect  to  matter  of 
this  sort  is,  that  Xenophon  has  maintained  a  wonderful  consistency  and 
appropriateness  in  all  these,  with  respect  to  the  persons  to  whom  they  be 
long.  Such  narratives,  moreover,  as  that  of  Abradatas,  Panthea,  and 
Araspes  (Lib.  VI.),  have  unquestionably  received  much  of  their  costume 
from  the  Grecian  artist.  Such  incidents,  also,  as  those  in  respect  to  Go- 
bryas  and  Gadatas,  have  been  moulded  by  his  skilful  hand.  But  how  all 
this  can  prove  or  even  render  it  probable,  that  the  substantial  part  of  such 
narrations  is  not  matter  of  fact,  I  am  not  able  to  see.  One  single  question 
would  seem  to  place  these  and  the  like  matters  on  their  proper  basis  ;  and  this 
is  :  Have  not  Herodotus,  Thucydides,  Livy,  nay  all  ancient  historians,  in 
troduced  speeches  and  conversations  everywhere,  and  in  like  manner  ? 
Have  they  not  adorned,  more  or  less  according  to  their  ability,  the  accounts 
they  give  of  interesting  occurrences  ?  And  are  all  these  writers  nothing 
more  than  romancers,  whose  historical  credit  has  no  good  foundation  ? 
This  question,  considered  in  all  its  bearings,  would  seem  to  settle  the  gene 
ral  account  of  this  matter,  on  a  basis  that  cannot  well  be  shaken. 

In  modern  times,  we  regard  it  as  a  capital  defect  in  a  romance,  profess 
ing  to  be  historical,  if  it  departs  widely  from  the  truth,  and  indeed  even  if 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V.  153 

it  does  not  keep  somewhat  closely  to  historical  verity.  We  allow  all  possible 
scope  for  the  writer  to  indulge  his  descriptive  powers,  in  the  development 
of  character,  as  to  minor  circumstances.  But  we  do  not  not  allow  him  to 
represent  to  us  the  peaceful  end  of  a  man,  at  his  own  home,  who  died  on 
the  battle  field  in  consequence  of  aggressions  upon  his  neighbors.  In  an 
cient  times,  a  plan  of  romance  which  is  throughout  a  mere  offspring  of  fic 
tion,  is  not  to  be  found.  If  Xenophon  wrote  such  a  book,  he  anticipated 
the  natural  course  of  things,  by  more  than  a  thousand  years.  "  The  ancient 
Greek  historians,"  says  a  recent  and  very  sagacious  critic  (Blum),  "  even 
where  they  choose,  like  Xenophon  in  his  Cyropedia,  to  indulge  their  in 
ventive  fancy,  attach  themselves,  if  possible,  to  some  historical  narration ;" 
(Herod,  und  Ctes.  s.  176).  This  writer  adverts  to  a  signal  instance  of  this 
in  Xenophon  himself.  In  Cyrop.  Lib.  III.,  the  author  introduces  a  notable 
story  of  Tigranes,  the  prince  of  Armenia,  a  character  unknown  to  all  other 
Greek  writers ;  of  course  one  at  the  mention  of  whose  name  some  recent 
critics  exclaim  :  Romance  !  Yet  Moses  of  Chorene  (I.  23),  says  "  that  this 
same  Tigranes  excelled  all  the  kings  of  Armenia  in  bravery  and  in  intelli 
gence  ;"  to  which  he  adds  a  copious  recitation  of  his  virtues  and  his  deeds. 
Must  we  not  conclude,  then,  that  Xenophon,  on  his  march  through  Arme 
nia  at  the  head  of  the  Ten  Thousand,  collected  the  facts  respecting  Tigranes 
from  old  songs,  ballads,  and  tales  ;  the  very  sources  from  which  Moses  of 
Chorene  drew  his  information  ?  And  may  we  not  —  or  rather,  must  we 
not  —  reasonably  conclude,  that  Xenophon  obtained  his  views  of  Cyrus  in 
like  manner  among  the  Persians  ? 

That  this  author  has  held  the  reins  of  his  historical  Muse  loosely,  and 
purposely  omitted  some  of  the  usual  accompaniments  of  history,  at  least  of 
such  history  as  he  writes  in  his  Anabasis  and  Hellenics,  is  plain  to  every 
observing  reader.  For  example ;  time  and  place  receive  comparatively 
very  little  attention  from  him.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  when 
he  wrote,  there  was,  as  yet,  no  fixed  era.  So  again,  in  the  closing  part  of 
his  work  (VIII.  6),  a  single  paragraph  is  all  that  Xenophon  bestows  on 
Cyrus'  conquest  of  Egypt  and  all  the  neighboring  countries.  His  work 
was  done,  when  he  had  seated  his  hero  on  the  throne  of  all  hither  and 
middle  Asia,  which  he  had  acquired  by  the  display  of  his  skill,  his  bravery, 
and  his  power. 

But  to  draw  the  conclusion  from  all  this,  that  Cyaxares,  who  mingles 
with  the  whole  work  from  beginning  to  end,  is  a  mere  figment  of  Xeno- 
phon's  imagination,  seems  very  strange,  and,  if  I  may  say  it,  very  uncriti 
cal.  What  purposes  of  fiction  which  the  writer  had  in  view,  does  Cyaxares 
answer  to  ?  He  serves  no  good  purpose,  either  of  contrast  or  of  example  ; 
or  if  subservient  to  either  purpose  it  is  only  in  a  slight  degree  to  that  of 
contrast.  He  is  an  insignificant  character  at  the  most.  Would  Xenophon's 
genius  have  created  such  a  fancy-actor  as  this  is  ?  In  fact,  if  he  is  really  any 
thing,  he  is  a  kind  of  mar-plot  of  the  work  —  a  puppet  gaudily  dressed,  but 
saying  nothing,  and  doing  nothing,  to  the  main  purpose  of  the  writer.  The 
advocates  of  pure  romance  here  seem  to  be  nonplus'd  by  the  principles  of 
aesthetics.  Xenophon  was  one  of  the  last  men  to  offend  in  this  particular ; 
and  Cyaxares  must  either  have  been  better  or  worse,  if  he  was  a  creation 
of  Xenophon's  fancy.  Cui  bono  f  is  a  question,  which  the  advocates  of  en 
tire  fiction  in  Xenophon  have  never  yet  answered,  in  respect  to  Cyaxares. 


154  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V. 

I  have  a  deep  and  abiding  impression  from  the  reading  of  Xenophon, 
that  the  character  in  question  was  forced  upon  him  by  historical  fact,  pre 
served  in  songs,  records,  and  traditions  ;  and  that  otherwise  such  a  charac 
ter  would  never  have  made  its  appearance  in  the  Cyropedia.  At  the 
very  outset  of  his  work  (I.  1.  6)  he  states,  after  drawing  some  general  out 
lines  of  his  hero,  that  he  had  made  inquiry  respecting  his  birth,  disposition, 
education,  and  art  of  governing.  He  then  adds  :  "  Whatever  I  have  learned, 
or  think  I  know,  concerning  him,  I  shall  endeavor  to  relate."  In  VIII.  5. 
28,  he  refutes  those  hoyonoiol,  who  assert  that  Cyaxares  gave  his  sister  to 
Cyrus  as  a  wife,  strenuously  maintaining  that  it  was  his  daughter.  Such 
passages  show,  that,  as  to  historical  occurrences,  he  meant  to  keep  within 
the  bounds  of  a  narrator,  and  not  to  roam  at  large  with  a  mere  romancer. 
Add  to  all  this,  the  entire  freedom  of  the  whole  work  from  all  that  is  my 
thic,  and  extravagant,  and  incredible  ;  a  circumstance  which  speaks  loudly 
as  to  its  historical  character.  Could  a  pure  work  of  romance,  or  one  com 
posed  from  fables,  have  well  assumed  such  a  character  ? 

This  last  suggestion  obliges  me,  for  a  moment,  to  allude  to  the  character 
istics  of  those,  who  are  appealed  to  as  proper  historians  of  the  reign  of 
Cyrus,  and  whose  account  is  received  by  critics  like  Lengerke,  as  alto 
gether  worthy  of  more  credit  than  that  of  Xenophon.  A  candid  man,  well 
versed  in  matters  of  antiquity,  cannot  possibly  read  the  narration  of  Hero 
dotus,  without  an  instinctive  conviction  of  its  mythic  nature.  The  whole 
tenor  of  the  story  about  his  birth  and  marvellous  escape  from  death ;  of 
Harpagus,  and  the  shepherd,  and  the  Thyestean  feast  prepared  for  the  for 
mer  by  Astyages  ;  and  after  all  this,  the  conducting  of  the  army  against 
Cyrus  committed  to  this  same  Harpagus  ;  are  (to  speak  with  Vitringa,  in 
Es.  I.  p.  543)  not  only  paradoxa,  but  -naQudol-ojena  omnia.  So  the  whole 
view  which  Herodotus  takes  of  the  Persian  poverty  and  destitution  of  all 
that  belongs  to  wealth  and  luxury  and  civilization,  before  they  subdued 
Croesus  and  the  Lydians,  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  his  other  represen 
tation,  viz.,  that  they  were  already  masters  of  Media  when  they  engaged 
in  this  expedition,  in  which  country  was  great  affluence  and  splendor. 
Last  of  all,  the  final  attack  of  Cyrus  on  the  Scythian  Massagetae,  the  man 
ner  in  which  it  was  conducted,  and  particularly  the  violent  death  of  Cyrus, 
and  the  barbarous  manner  in  which  his  corpse  was  treated  by  the  Scythian 
queen  Tomyris,  are  not  only  in  themselves  altogether  improbable,  but  they 
are  contradicted  by  the  fact,  that  Cyrus'  remains  were  deposited  in  his  well 
known  tomb  at  Pasargadae,  and  found  there  by  Aristobulus,  an  officer  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  deputized  to  examine  into  the  alleged  robbery  of 
that  tomb.  Thither  Alexander  himself  repaired  and  ordered  everything 
to  be  restored  as  far  as  possible.  This  story  is  told  by  Strabo  (XIV.),  by 
Arrian  (Exped.  Alex.  VI.  29),  and  by  Q.  Curtius  in  his  Life  of  Alexan 
der  ;  and  in  all,  it  is  circumstantially  related,  and  is  utterly  at  variance 
with  the  account  of  Herodotus  as  to  the  death  of  Cyrus.  An  explicit  state 
ment  is  made,  that  a  guard  and  lamps  and  sacrifices  had  been  regularly 
established  there  ever  since  the  time  of  Cambyses,  the  son  and  successor 
of  Cyrus.  This  circumstance,  moreover,  teaches  us  how  to  dispose  of  the 
narration  of  Diodorus  Siculus  (II.  44),  that  Cyrus  was  taken  prisoner  in  a 
battle  against  the  Amazons,  and  by  their  queen  condemned  to  crucifixion, 
by  which  he  actually  perished.  Ctesias  assigns  to  him  a  still  different 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V.  155 

death.  Cyrus  gives  battle  to  the  Derbici ;  is  wounded  by  an  Indian,  (the 
Indians  were  allies  of  the  Derbici)  ;  and  he  dies  the  third  day  afterwards, 
Persica,  §  8.  Ctesias  adds,  that  his  body  was  sent  to  Persia  and  buried 
there  by  Cambyses  his  son,  ib.  §  9.  Lucian  (de  Longaevis)  makes  him  live 
more  than  a  hundred  years.  Of  all  these  accounts,  only  that  of  Ctesias  is  re 
concilable  with  the  place  of  his  tomb,  and  with  the  fact  that  not  only  his  relics 
were  found  there  by  Alexander,  but  also  a  definite  inscription  upon  the 
monument  which  related  to  him.  We  have  then  to  choose  between  him 
and  Xenophon.  I  see  not  how  we  can  hesitate  to  give  the  preference  to 
the  latter.  If  we  are  met  again  with  the  salutation  of  romance,  why  is  it 
any  more  to  Xenophon's  purpose,  we  may  reply,  to  let  him  die  in  peace, 
than  to  represent  him  as  falling  gloriously  on  the  field  of  battle,  in  defence 
of  his  country  —  the  place  of  all  others,  where  heroes  of  the  Grecian  stamp 
wished  to  die  ?  Nelson  died  just  where,  if  not  when,  he  wished  of  all 
things  to  die,  i.  e.  in  the  arms  of  victory  ;  and  victory,  according  to  Ctesias, 
was  connected  with  the  wound  and  death  of  Cyrus,  for  the  Derbici  met 
with  a  signal  defeat. 

Plutarch,  Aristotle,  Lucian,  Arrian,  Strabo,  and  others  among  the  an 
cients,  accuse  Ctesias  loudly  of  narrating  fabulous  and  incredible  stories. 
Partially  Herodotus  also  has  a  share  in  their  censure.  Ba'hr  has  examined 
the  subject  at  length  in  the  Preface  to  his  Ctesias.  It  would  be  out  of  place 
to  pursue  it  here.  But  I  may  add  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  best  edi 
tor  both  of  Herodotus  and  Ctesias  who  has  yet  appeared.  He  is  speaking 
of  the  difference  between  the  narrations  of  Ctesias  and  Herodotus,  re 
specting  the  death  of  Cyrus  ;  and  he  says  :  "  That  I  may  begin  with  the 
narration  of  Herodotus,  I  will  speak  openly  what  I  think.  It  is  not  want 
ing  in  tragical  ornament ;  and  in  this  way  Herodotus  has  adorned  other 
things  respecting  Cyrus,  beautifully  imagined  according  to  the  lofty  con 
ceptions  of  the  Greeks;"  (Ba'hr  in  Ctes.  p.  11.)  In  this  judgment,  he  says, 
Osiander  accords  ;  and  he  then  appeals  to  the  tomb  of  Cyrus  at  Pasargadae 
as  contradicting  Herodotus'  account  of  Cyrus'  death. 

Let  not  the  reader  suppose,  that  it  is  my  design  to  discredit  either  Hero 
dotus  or  Ctesias,  where  they  give  facts  within  their  knowledge,  or  which 
are  derived  from  authentic  sources.  But  when  Herodotus  relates  the  my 
thic  and  the  marvellous,  (which  is  not  very  unfrequent),  he  nearly  always 
tells  us  his  sources,  (as  he  does  in  the  case  of  Cyrus),  and  contents  himself 
with  the  office  of  merely  reporting  what  is  told  him.  This  is  honest  and 
upright ;  nor  should  I  scruple  to  assign  to  him  a  character  corresponding 
to  these  qualities.  Ctesias,  however,  has  less  scruples,  and  often  tells  sto 
ries  which  he  expects  will  surprise  the  reader,  excite  his  wonder,  and  serve 
to  entertain  him.  The  monstrosity  of  many  of  his  statements  respecting 
the  Assyrian  Semiramis,  and  concerning  many  things  that  he  saw  in  India, 
no  one  can  fail  to  notice  who  reads  him  critically. 

No  Grecian  fable  of  the  origin  of  Minerva  or  of  Venus  surpasses  his  ge 
netic  account  of  Semiramis,  as  related  in  Diod.  Sic.  II.  4.  When  Ninus 
dies,  Semiramis,  as  he  tells  us,  erected  a  monument  to  his  memory  nine 
stadia  in  height  [=l|-mile];  which,  he  asserts,  was  still  standing,  (viz. 
when  he  wrote),  so  long  after  the  destruction  of  Nineveh.  This  same  Se 
miramis,  moreover,  builds  Babylon,  with  sixty  miles  of  wall  around  it  300 
feet  high,  in  one  year.  When  she  makes  war  on  India,  inasmuch  as  Meso- 


156  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V. 

potamia  had  no  elephants,  she  makes  300,000  mock-elephants  out  of  the  stuffed 
skins  of  so  many  black  oxen  ;  she  collects  3,000,000  footmen,  500,000  horse 
men,  and  100,000  chariots  of  war.  To  finish  her  story,  she  flies  away  at 
last  in  the  shape  of  a  dove,  and  never  reappears.  —  All  this  without  any 
caution  to  the  reader  !  And  then,  the  gross  errors  in  topography  !  Asca- 
lon  (in  Palestine)  has  a  large  lake  near  it,  into  which  the  mother  of  Semi- 
ramis  casts  and  drowns  herself,  Diod.  II.  4.  Nineveh  is  often  and  always 
placed  on  the  Euphrates,  §  7  seq.  These  are  only  mere  specimens.  What 
ever  now  Ctesias,  or  his  supporters,  may  say  of  his  drawing  his  accounts 
from  the  dicp&EQai  fiaffihixat,  we  cannot  well  suppose,  that  a  man  born  and 
brought  up  at  no  great  distance  from  Ascalon  could  be  a  very  accurate 
observer,  who  could  believe  that  there  was  a  great  lake  near  that  town  ; 
and  what  can  be  said  to  apologize  for  the  gross  ignorance  of  geography 
manifested  in  placing  Nineveh  on  the  Euphrates  f  Bahr  labors  somewhat  to 
soften  this  matter  ;  but  this  is  done  by  appealing  to  other  writers  who  as 
sert  the  like,  but  who  were  themselves  in  all  probability  led  by  Ctesias, 
Ctes.  p.  391.  Not  so  Wesseling  ;  "  Ctesias,"  says  he,  "  places  this  city  on 
the  Euphrates,  turpi  errore  ;"  Notae  in  Diod.  II.  7.  Yet  a  direct  design  to 
mislead  cannot  justly  be  attributed,  I  apprehend,  to  Ctesias.  He  may  be 
trusted,  where  there  is  probable  evidence  of  his  acquaintance  with  the  sub 
ject-matter,  and  no  inherent  improbability  ;  but  his  love  of  the  marvellous, 
his  apparent  desire  to  produce  astonishment  and  wonder  in  his  readers,  and 
his  evident  lack  of  geographical  knowledge,  render  it  necessary  to  read 
him  with  caution,  and  not  unfrequently  with  distrust.  Blum  (ut  sup.  p. 
120  seq.)  has  shown,  at  last,  the  probable  ground  of  Ctesias'  fabulous  as 
pect,  viz.  that  the  dicp&tQcti  fiaffihxal  from  which  he  drew,  were,  like  the 
Shah-Nameh,  poetical  ballads  in  commemoration  of  kings.  The  Persians 
and  other  Orientals  had  their  poets  laureate  ;  and  Ctesias  has  given  us  some 
of  the  fruits  of  their  poetic  imaginations,  in  respect  to  their  ancient  kings 
and  heroes. 

It  is  but  just  and  proper,  that  all  these  things  should  be  taken  into  the 
estimation,  when  we  make  a  comparison  between  Herodotus  and  Ctesias  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  Bible  and  Xenophon  on  the  other.  Xenophon  is 
perfectly  sober.  He  had  good  opportunity  to  study  the  Persians  and  their 
affairs.  He  brought  to  this  study  a  mind  of  the  first  order.  The  Hebrews, 
of  all  the  western  Asiatic  nations,  had  most  occasion  to  know,  and  must 
have  best  known,  Babylon  at  the  time  of  its  fall,  and  those  concerned  with 
bringing  about  its  fall.  There  is  therefore  a  strong  presumption,  that 
they  have  given  us  a  narration  in  regard  to  those  subjects  which  is  worthy 
of  credit. 

An  accidental  passage,  in  Aeschylus,  which  I  have  not  yet  adduced,  serves 
strongly  to  confirm  the  account  as  given  by  Xenophon  and  the  book  of 
Daniel.  In  his  Persae,  the  ghost  of  Darius  is  introduced,  and  among  other 
things  he  gives  an  account  of  the  gradual  conquest  of  hither  and  middle 
Asia  by  the  Medo-Persian  arms.  The  passage  runs  thus  : 

Mydog  yctQ  i]v  o  n^tarog 
'  exslvov  naig  ro 
aviov 


an   aviov     VO     tvaHav  uvt]Q. 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V.  157 

That  is :  "A  Mede  [Astyages]  was  the  first  leader  of  the  army  ;  the  second, 
his  son  [Cyaxares],  carried  on  the  work  ;  for  understanding  guided  his 
purpose.  The  third,  after  him,  was  Cyrus,  a  fortunate  man,"  etc. ;  Pers. 
765  seq.  Lengerke  dispenses  with  this  passage,  by  asking  how  the  eulogy 
of  Cyaxares,  in  the  third  line,  would  fit  the  Cyaxares  of  Xenophon  ;  and 
by  remarking,  that  Aeschylus  was  probably  in  the  same  plight  with  those 
oriental  writers,  who,  since  the  establishment  of  the  dynasty  of  the  Kayani- 
dae,  know  of  only  two  (generic)  royal  names,  Kaicobad  and  Kaikawus. 
But  is  this  a  satisfactory  answer,  in  respect  to  such  a  man  as  Aeschylus  ? 
Born  within  some  three  or  four  years  after  the  death  of  Cyrus  (B.  C.  525), 
in  an  elevated  station  of  society  and  probably  of  royal  descent,  he  mingled 
in  the  fiercest  contests  of  the  Greeks  against  the  Persian  invaders,  and 
fought  in  person  at  the  battles  of  Marathon  and  Plataea,  as  also  in  the  sea- 
fights  of  Artemisium  and  Salamis.  Of  the  latter  he  has  given  a  picture,  in 
immortal  verse,  in  his  Persae.  Could  a  man  like  him,  not  inferior  in  talent 
to  any  Greek  poet  that  ever  wielded  the  pen,  and  personally  connected 
with  all  the  great  battles  of  his  country  with  the  Persians,  be  ignorant  of 
what  had  passed  in  their  country  the  very  generation  before  he  was  born  ? 
It  is  allowed  by  all  competent  judges,  that  he  has  in  his  Persae,  the  only 
Greek  play  that  makes  a  foreign  ground  its  basis,  given  a  truly  oriental 
picture,  which  shows  his  intimate  acquaintance  with  oriental  matters. 
Yet  this  same  Aeschylus  has  given  the  succession  of  kings  as  Xenophon 
gives  it,  and  in  entire  accordance  with  what  the  book  of  Daniel  declares. 
Well  did  Bertholdt  (Comm.  on  Dan.),  and  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus  (art. 
t&l^l)}  appeal  to  this  evidence  as  conclusive  against  the  silence  of  He 
rodotus  and  Ctesias,  in  respect  to  a  Median  successor  of  Astyages. 

As  to  Berosus,  there  is  nothing  to  decide  the  question.  It  is  true,  that 
he  names  Cyrus  merely  as  the  conqueror  of  Babylon.  But  this  he  was  de 
facto ;  and  Darius  never  seems  to  have  been  an  agent  in  the  matter,  in 
any  such  way  as  to  draw  him  into  special  notice.  Besides,  he  was  far  ad 
vanced  in  years,  and  held  even  nominal  dominion  but  for  a  short  period ; 
and  this  he  committed  to  the  active  management  of  Cyrus.  Nothing  of 
.any  importance,  then,  against  our  position,  can  be  brought  from  this  quarter. 

'  But  Xenophon,'  says  Lengerke,  '  is  not  to  be  credited  in  his  Cyropedia, 
because  in  his  Anabasis,  which  is  all  sober  history,  he  contradicts  the  idea, 
that  Cyrus  took  in  a  peaceful  manner  the  dominion  of  the  Medes  ;  for  he 
says  (Ariab.  III.  4.  8),  that  when  the  Persian  king  took  the  dominion  of  the 
Medes,  he  attacked  the  city  of  Larissa  [belonging  to  Media],  but  could  not 
take  it.  Again,  in  Anab.  III.  4. 11,  it  is  said  of  Mespila  [another  Median  city], 
that  '  a  Median  queen  fled  thither  when  the  Medes  lost  their  dominion  by 
reason  of  the  Persians.'  But  since  Media,  like  Persia,  was  made  up  of  many 
different  tribes  and  clans,  who  all  had  their  chiefs,  what  is  there  improbable 
in  the  supposition,  that  when  the  government  passed  to  Cyrus,  some  of 
these  chiefs,  having  very  strongly  fortified  cities,  set  up  for  themselves, 
and  refused  allegiance  to  the  new  king  Cyrus  ?  That  some  queen  of  Cy 
axares,  disliking  his  dowry  to  Cyrus,  should  have  fled  to  one  of  these  cities, 
would  be  no  strange  occurrence. 

If  any  results  of  chronology  can  be  depended  on,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
suppose  that  Astyages  was  an  important  actor,  during  the  period  of  Cyrus' 
active  services,  which  continued  for  some  thirty  years.  Astyages  died  about 

14 


158  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V. 

560.  Cyrus  took  Babylon  about  538 — 539  B.  C.,  i.  e.  twenty-two  years 
after  the  death  of  Astyages.  The  probability  of  an  intermediate  king  is 
therefore  very  great.  Lengerke  says,  that  '  to  make  room  for  this  shadowy 
king,  Xenophon  has  cut  oft'  twenty-two  years  from  Cyrus'  reign,  which  was 
twenty-nine  according  to  Herodotus,  and  thirty  according  to  Ctesias.'  But 
this  difficulty  is  easily  solved.  The  two  latter  reckon  from  the  time  when 
Cyrus  took  the  chief  command  of  the  Persian  forces,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  war  in  Asia  Minor,  while  Xenophon  counts  only  upon  his  universal 
empire,  after  the  death  of  Cyaxares. 

Some  stress  has  been  laid  on  the  testimony  of  Suidas  (s.  v.  dctQtwo^,  of 
the  Scholiast  to  Aristoph.  Eccles.,  and  of  Harpocration,  that  the  coin  'p'S'i'iX 
(mentioned  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah)  is  older  than  Darius  Hystaspis.  If  so, 
it  not  improbably  belongs  to  the  age  of  the  Darius  mentioned  in  Dan.  6:  1. 
But  as  this  Persian  name  means  king  ;  and  as  Herodotus  (IV.  166)  denies 
that  the  Persians  had  any  coined  money  before  the  time  of  Darius  Hystas 
pis,  some  doubt  may  be  felt  in  regard  to  reliance  upon  this  argument. 

Finally,  (for  this  Note  already  too  much  protracted  must  come  to  a  close), 
I  do  not  pretend  to  assert  that  there  are  no  difficulties  in  the  matter  before 
us.  It  would  argue  a  very  incompetent  view  of  the  whole  subject,  if  any 
one  should  assert  this.  But  I  am  persuaded  that  our  difficulties  are  no 
greater  here,  than  they  are  in  respect  to  many  a  question  pertaining  to 
Assyrian,  Median,  Babylonian,  and  Persian  history.  For  the  first  three, 
we  are  dependent  on  Herodotus  and  Ctesias ;  for  of  other  authors  we  have 
only  mere  fragments,  mainly  preserved  in  Josephus,  Diodorus  Siculus,  and 
the  Chronicon  of  Eusebius.  Nothing  can  be  more  diverse,  than  some  of 
the  most  important  narratives  in  Herodotus  and  Ctesias.  All  attempts  to 
reconcile  them  are  beyond  question  fruitless ;  e.  g.  Herodotus  represents 
the  Assyrian  empire  as  lasting  520  years  ;  Ctesias,  as  continuing  1305  ;  the 
former  makes  the  Median  empire  to  have  six  kings  and  to  continue  150 
years,  the  latter  gives  to  it  nine  kings  and  more  than  282  years.  And  so 
of  many  other  matters.  It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the  writers  must  have 
drawn  from  very  different  sources,  and  that  these  were  used  with  little,  or 
at  least  without  any  effectual,  critical  discrimination. 

But  one  of  the  most  important  things  to  be  kept  in  view  is,  that  silence 
or  an  omission  in  respect  to  this  fact  or  that,  is  a  most  slippery  and  feeble 
foundation  to  build  upon.  All  accounts  of  those  ancient  times  are  mere 
historical  anecdotes,  selected  mostly  with  a  view  to  effect  upon  the  mind  of 
the  reader.  In  a  modified  sense,  this  remark  applies  to  the  O.  Test;  history. 
It  is  a  series  of  historical  narrations  respecting  interesting  events  or  per 
sons,  but  it  is  not  a  full  and  minute  history,  and  it  makes  no  pretensions  to 
being  a  complete  historical  record.  I  cannot  argue,  therefore,  from  the 
silence  of  the  book  of  Chronicles  about  certain  facts  related  in  the  book  of 
Kings,  that  these  facts  are  not  true.  In  like  manner,  I  cannot  argue  from 
the  silence  of  the  Bible,  or  of  Xenophon,  about  a  battle  before  the  walls  of 
Babylon  between  Cyrus  and  the  last  Babylonian  king,  that  there  was  no 
battle.  Berosus  and  Herodotus  both  assert  that  such  a  battle  was  fought ; 
but  Abydenus  (Chron.  Euseb.  I.  10)  says  not  a  word  of  it,  in  his  account 
of  the  capture  of  Babylon.  If  Herodotus  and  Berosus  contradict  Daniel 
and  Xenophon,  as  Lengerke  declares,  then  do  they  contradict  Abydenus 
also.  And  what  shall  be  said  of  Ctesias,  who  does  not  even  advert  to  the 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  V.  159 

conquest  of  Babylon  at  all  ?  It  is  indeed  no  contradiction  of  one  author, 
when  another  has  omitted  to  record  what  he  has  recorded.  The  Bible  has 
nothing;  to  do  with  the  life  of  Cyrus,  excepting  in  his  relation  to  the  Jews; 
much  less  does  it  give  the  whole  history  of  Babylon.  The  omission  of  Cy 
rus'  battle,  as  mentioned  above,  was  of  course  to  be  expected,  and  is  no  in 
congruity.  As  to  Xenophon,  we  might  well  suppose,  that  the  Cyropedia 
would  have  described  the  contest  in  question,  because  it  makes  for  the 
glory  of  the  hero.  But  this  historian  has  given  a  mere  sketch  of  the  march 
of  Cyrus  from  Sardis  to  Babylon  (VII.  4),  and  he  mentions  only,  that 
on  that  march  he  overthrew  the  Phrygians,  the  Cappadocians,  and  the 
Arabians.  As  these  were  in  league  with  Babylon^  or  at  any  rate  cooperat 
ing  with  it,  it  may  be  that  the  battle  in  question  is  included  in  this  brief 
notice.  All  the  conquests  of  Cyrus,  moreover,  subsequent  to  that  of  Baby 
lon,  are  merely  touched  upon  by  Xenophon,  in  a  single  paragraph,  (VIII. 
6).  We  can  no  more  give  the  reason,  perhaps,  why  such  an  omission  ex 
ists  in  Xenophon,  than  we  can  why  Ctesias  omitted  all  mention  of  Cyrus' 
conquest  of  Babylon.  Everywhere  in  Herodotus  and  Ctesias,  such  omis 
sions  abound.  But  to  represent  Berosus  and  Herodotus  who  mention  the 
battle  in  question,  as  contradicting  Xenophon  and  Daniel  who  mention  it 
not,  (as  Lengerke  does),  seems  to  be  hardly  consistent  with  either  criti 
cal  candor  or  proper  discrimination.  To  appeal  to  Isa.  43:  14,  17,  as 
testifying  to  the  battle  in  question  (p.  217),  when  it  is  a  mere  general  and 
poetic  picture  of  subjugation,  and  also  to  Isa.  42:  13  as  confirming  this,  only 
adds  new  proof  that  this  writer  is  animated  by  the  spirit  of  Dtlenda  est 
Carthago. 

In  fine,  one  must  be  cautious,  as  to  great  confidence  in  any  particular 
statement  of  Herodotus  or  Ctesias,  in  respect  to  very  remote  times  and 
oriental  countries.  That  Herodotus  acknowledges  three  different  accounts 
of  Cyrus,  besides  his  own,  and  that  with  him  it  is  a  mere  choice  between 
traditions,  is  replete  with  instruction.  That  Ctesias  drew  from  heroic  and 
regal  songs,  i.  e.  old  ballads,  is  not  to  be  forgotten.  Hence  it  comes  to  pass, 
as  one  of  the  most  acute  critics  on  the  sources  of  the  histories  in  question 
has  said,  "  that  should  any  one  attempt  to  force  an  agreement  between 
Herodotus  and  Ctesias,  forthwith  the  result  of  all  his  laborious  efforts  is 
found  impinging  against  other  stories  respecting  the  same  object,  which 
make  no  less  claim  to  tell  the  truth  than  those  on  which  he  has  relied  ; 
Blum,  Herod,  and  Ctes.  s.  230.  So  Wesseling  has  often  acknowledged  the 
impossibility  of  reconciling  Ctesias  and  Herodotus  in  his  Notes  on  Diod. 
Sic.  II.  Bahr,  by  far  the  most  able  of  all  the  editors  of  the  works  of  both 
those  ancient  historians,  has  said,  again  and  again,  that  all  efforts  to  recon 
cile  them  seem  to  be  nothing  more  in  amount  than  oleum  et  operam  per- 
dere ;  a  judgment,  in  my  view,  unquestionably  just. 

Shall  we  then,  where  such  authors  are  contradicted  by  Xenophon  and 
the  Scriptures,  credit  them,  or  either  of  them,  in  preference  to  consistent, 
sober,  consentaneous  authorities  ?  Thic  is  at  last  the  simple  question.  Len 
gerke  decides  for  the  former  ;  my  reason  and  judgment  give  preference  to 
the  latter. 


160  CHAP.  VI.  INTRODUCTION. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

[Darius,  being  possessed  of  the  whole  empire  of  hither  Asia,  sets  over  it  120  Sa 
traps  to  regulate  its  affairs.  These  were  superintended  by  three  Praefects;  and  of 
these  Daniel  was  chief.  The  king,  because  of  his  qualities  and  services,  was  desirous 
to  make  him  a  leading  officer  over  the  Avhole  realm,  i.  e.  Satrap  of  the  Satraps  or 
•chief  Satrap;  vs.  1 — 3.  Daniel's  under  officers  of  both  grades  were  envious  toward 
him,  and  desirous  of  degrading  and  ruining  him,  but  they  could  find  nothing  in  his 
•official  conduct  on  which  they  could  lay  bold  for  this  purpose.  They  therefore  de 
vised  a  scheme  to  entrap  him,  on  the  ground  of  his  religious  duties,  vs.  4,  5.  They 
persuaded  Darius  to  make  a  decree,  that  no  request  should  be  made  of  God  or  man, 
for  thirty  days,  except  of  the  king  alone ;  vs.  6 — 9.  Daniel,  with  full  knowledge  of 
this,  worshipped,  as  usual,  in  his  chamber,  where  he  could  be  seen  by  others  through 
the  window  of  his  apartment;  v.  10.  His  accusers  who  were  on  the  watch,  inform 
the  king,  and  urge  the  execution  of  the  statute  that  had  been  made,  the  penalty  of 
which  was  to  be  cast  into  a  den  of  lions  ;  vs.  10 — 13  The  king  is  greatly  distressed 
by  the  information  respecting  Daniel,  and  seeks  for  some  expedient  to  justify  him  in 
his  release,  but  he  finds  none.  The  accusers  return,  and  urge  the  execution  of  the 
penalty;  to  which  the  king  feels  himself  obliged  to  assent;  14—16.  The  den  of 
!the  lions  is  closed  upon  Daniel  and  sealed ;  and  the  king  goes  mourning  to  his 
abode;  vs.  17,  18.  The  king  after  a  night  of  agitation,  goes  early  in  the  morning  to 
the  den;  calls  aloud  to  Daniel;  and  is  answered  by  him  with  an  account  of  his  safe 
ty  ;  vs.  19 — 22.  The  king  orders  Daniel  to  be  taken  from  the  den,  and  his  accusers 
and  their  families  to  be  thrown  into  it;  vs.  23,  24.  Darius  issues  a  proclamation, 
that  the  God  of  Daniel  should  be  feared  and  reverenced,  because  of  the  wonders 
which  he  had  done  ;  vs.  26,  27.  Daniel  remains  in  favor  with  the  king,  and  after 
wards  with  Cyrus;  v.  28.] 

( 1 )  And  Darius  the  Medc  took  the  kingdom,  when  he  was  about  sixty-two  years 
of  age 

That  this  belongs  to  the  preceding  narration,  seems  to  me  quite  clear ; 
and  in  this  light  most  of  the  commentators  have  regarded  it.  It  serves 
to  complete  the  historic  view  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  third  clause  con 
tained  in  the  writing  on  the  wall,  viz.  "  Thy  kingdom  shall  be  taken 
from  thee,  and  given  to  the  Mede  and  the  Persian."  —  "153 ,  3  =  the  Lat. 
circiter.  about.  The  idiom,  son  of  so  many  years,  is  too  familiar  to  need 
remark.  —  ^3i?>  took,  received;  from  whom?  The  implication  seems 
very  clear,  that  he  took  the  government  of  which  the  Babylonish  king 
had  been  deprived  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  took  that  kingdom  which 
Belshazzar  had  left.  —  "pWTO ,  fern,  form  of  "p^Fi ,  which  is  a  contracted 
dual  for  -pirn ,  and  being  of  a  fern,  form,  it  agrees  with  the  masc.  noun 
•pail?,  §  36.  2.  This  is  the  only  dual  form  in  Chaldee. 


CHAP.  VI.  2—5.  161 

(2)  It  seemed  good  to  Darius,  and  he  appointed  one  hundred  and  twenty  satraps 
over  the  kingdom,  who  should  be  over  all  the  empire. 


d^  ,  before  =  "OSa  or  issb  ,  in  the  sight  of,  in  the  view  of,  comp.  in  4: 
24,  where  bs>  follows  the  same  verb,  in  a  like  sense.  —  Kjafi^ttSrf&jjb  ,  Ace. 
with  b  ,  §  56.  2.  —  "jirjb  ,  see  on  2:  20.  The  last  clause  here  serves  to 
explain  and  expand  the  meaning  of  the  preceding  one,  so  that  the  reader 
may  know  that  the  arrangement  in  question  is  extended  to  the  whole  of 
the  empire,  to  that  newly  acquired  as  well  as  to  the  rest. 

(3)  And  over  them  three  directors,  of  whom  Daniel  was  one,  in  order  that  those 
satraps  might  render  an  account  to  them,  so  that  the  king  might  suffer  no  loss. 

fi&§  ,  emph.  form  =  Heb.  b?  ,  over.  —  Tifijra  ,  "jp  with  Dagh.  f.  before 
a  suffix,  §  38.  note,  lit.  of  them.  The  whole  phrase,  in  its  literal  form,  runs 
thus  :  In  the  above  of  them  or  from  them,  i.  e.  in  the  superiority  of  them  = 
over  them.  The  idiom  is  Chaldaic  purely.  So  in  Targ.  Onk.,  Gen.  22: 
9,  x*sx  1^  bi$  ,  lit.  above  from  the  wood  =  above  the  wood  ;  Deut.  28: 
43,  T,sa  b*<35  ,  above  from  thee  =  above  thee.  —  T?^&  is  plain  enough  as 
to  its  necessary  meaning  here  ;  but  its  etymology  is  uncertain  ;  see  in  Lex. 
—  •jinsa  ...**,  of  ivhom,  §  41.  1.  —  "pair;,  Part,  in  Peal,  joined  with 
the  following  verb  of  existence,  and  denoting  continued  or  customary 
action,  §  47.  1.  —  KE^B  ,  emph.  of  aso  ,  ratio,  account.  —  pt5  has  a  pas 
sive  sense,  because  the  verb  is  intrans.  ;  the  form  is  that  of  an  act.  Part. 
in  Peal,  §  12.  1.  c.  The  loss  referred  to  here,  seems  to  be  that  of  revenue. 

(4)  Then  the  same  Daniel  was  made  chief  over  the  directors  and  the  satraps,  be 
cause  an  excellent  spirit  was  in  him  ;  and  the  king  intended  to  set  him  over  the 
whole  empire. 

nsisntt  ,  Part.  Ithpaal,  final  Pattah  before  a  Guttural.  —  fcn^  pre 
eminent,  or  that  which  exceeds  or  goes  beyond  others.  —  ?TTO  ,  Peal  form, 
§  12.  2.  1.  a.  —  nnsiajsJib,  Inf.  Aph.  with  suff.,  p.  56.  e. 


(5)  Then  the  directors  and  satraps  sought  to  find  some  pretence  against  Daniel, 
in  regard  to  the  government;  but  no  pretence  ijor  corrupt  dealing  were  they  able  to 
find,  because  that  he  was  faithful,  and  fault  or  corrupt  dealing  was  not  found  against 
him. 

yj?a  ,  Part.  pi.  of  wz  ,  for  form,  p.  91.  Dec.  VII.  a.  —  bx^b  ,  lit.  in 
respect  to  Daniel  ;  I  have  translated  above  ad  sensum,  in  conformity 
with  our  idiom.  —  ^BE  ,  lit.  on  the  side  of,  on  the  part  of=in  regard  to. 
The  word  fining  I  have  rendered  as  a  noun,  for  the  fern,  of  adjectives 
or  participles  easily  goes  over  into  a  noun.  —  "j^rro  ,  Part.  pass.  Aph. 
of  "JBX,  see  p.  66,  •)»«  in  note.  —  ^btti  apoc.  form  of  nibia,  §  31.  1.  — 
ihibs  ,  lit.  upon  him,  i.  e.  resting  on  him  as  a  burden  ;  in  this  way  bs 
comes  to  mean  against,  as  I  have  rendered  it  above. 

14* 


162  CHAP.  VI.  6-8. 

(6)  Then  said  those  men  :  We  shall  not  find  any  pretence  against  this  Daniel,  un 
less  we  find  [it]  against  him  with  respect  to  the  law  of  his  God. 

"TH  is  here  the  mere  sign  of  words  quoted.  A  double  comma  would 
sufficiently  translate  it.  —  nBissia  >  1st  plur.  Aph.  Fut.  with  n  retained, 
p.  49.  5.  —  xans'ijn  ,  Aph.  Praet.  1st.  plur.  The  noun  Ti^y  ,  or  rather 
the  pronoun  in  its  place,  is  here  omitted.  The  translation  above  supplies 
the  latter.  —  !rna  has  special  reference  to  a  law  or  statute  in  regard  to 
matters  of  religion.  The  word  seems  to  be  Persian  in  its  origin  ;  see  Lex. 
This  is  high  testimony  in  favor  of  Daniel's  integrity  and  piety.  It  would 
seem,  that  even  his  rivals  apprehended  that  he  would  remain  firm  and 
unwavering  in  his  religious  duties. 

(7)  Then  those  directors  and  satraps  rushed  tumultuously  to  the  king,  and  spake 
thus  to  him  :  0  king  Darius,  live  forever  ! 

*raa*itt  ,  the  Heb.  form  of  Aph.  p.  50,  near  the  top  ;  it  means  to  as 
semble  and  move  along  with  tumult,  like  a  mob.  —  For  the  rest  of  the  verse, 
see  on  2:  4.  Lengerke  thinks  *  the  writer  has  here  forgotten  himself, 
and  wonders  how  all  these  satraps  could  be  there  in  Babylon,  when  they 
were  bound  to  be  in  their  respective  provinces,  for  the  sake  of  discharg 
ing  their  duties  !  But  inasmuch  as  they  had  just  been  appointed,  and  had 
not  yet  fully  prepared  to  go  to  their  respective  stations,  may  it  not  be 
easily  supposed,  that  during  the  delay  necessary  for  preparation,  all  hap 
pened  which  is  here  related  ?  However,  his  principal  objection  is,  that 
satraps  were  not  yet  in  fact  appointed.  Of  this,  more  anon. 

{8)  All  the  directors  of  the  kingdom,  the  deputy-governors,  satraps,  state-council 
lors,  and  overseers,  have  given  counsel  to  establish  a  decree  of  the  king  and  confirm 
a  prohibition,  that  whoever  shall  make  request  of  any  god  or  man  for  thirty  days, 
except  of  thee,  0  king,  he  shall  be  cast  into  the  den  of  lions. 


3W  ,  Ithpaal  3  pi.  Perf.,  from  asn  =  Heb.  -pan  >  see  Lex.  under  let 
ters  13  and  x  ;  *  instead  of  ?  with  Dagh.  f.  after  it,  because  of  the  Gut 
tural  that  follows.  Reciprocal  action,  i.  e.  mutual  counsel,  is  denoted  by 
Ithpaal  here  —  like  Niphal  in  Hebrew,  §  10.  7.  —  For  the  officers'  names, 
see  on  3:  2,  24.  —  rrajg  ,  Inf.  Pael  of  nip  .  —  D?p  ,  lit.  something  con 
firmed  or  established  ;  for  the  form,  see  §  28.  a.  1.  2.  —  MB|?rj  ,  Inf.  Pael. 

—  ^iGS;  ,  prohibition  from  *!&&*  to  bind,  constrain  ;    the  form  is  like  fc^p 
above.  —  wa  =  nwa  ,  §  29.  6.  a.    The  two  following  nouns  have  the 
same  form  with  the  first  two  in  this  verse,  as  noted  above.  —  "Trbrn  ,  30, 
from  r&ft  ,  with  pi.  form  added  which  makes  it  into  so  many  tens,  p.  101. 

—  SEW,  Fut.  Ithpeal.  —  »^1$  ,  pi.  of  rn^x  fern,  form,  with  nT  appa 
rently  paragogic,  so  that  the  word  =  "nx  ;  in  declining,  however,  this  let 
ter  is  treated  as  if  it  were  of  the  root,  and  a  substitute  (as  usual  elsewhere) 
for  a  final  1;  comp.  p.  92.  Par.  A.  b. 


CHAP.  VI.  9—11.  163 

(9)  Now,  0  king,  do  thou  establish  a  prohibition,  and  inscribe  a  writing  which  can 
not  be  changed,  according  to  the  law  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  which  cannot  be 
repealed. 

D^pn,  2  sing.  Fut.  used  as  the  Imper.  of  entreaty.  —  rrsiEhb  tfb  ,  the 
verb  is  Inf.  Aph.  of  fiOtiJ  with  praeform.  retained ;  the  verb  of  existence 
being  understood  after  sb  ,  the  phrase  lit.  means :  it  is  not  for  change,  or 
for  being  changed ;  see  §  46.  3.  note,  and  comp.  Heb.  Gramm.  §  129.  3. 
—  N^n  5  lit.  pass  away.  As  to  the  immutability  of  laws  written  and 
sealed  with  the  king's  signet,  comp.  Esth.  1: 19.  8:  8.  Observe  that  here 
the  order  of  the  two  nations  is  :  Medes  and  Persians  ;  which  agrees  with 
the  fact  asserted,  viz.  that  the  king  now  on  the  throne  was  a  Median. 
But  in  Est.  1:  3,  14, 18,  19,  when  a  Persian  is  on  the  throne,  the  order 
is  :  Persians  and  Medes.  The  use  to  be  made  of  this  fact,  has  already 
been  pointed  out  in  the  remarks  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter. 

(10)  Because  of  this,  king  Darius  wrote  down  a  writing  even  a  prohibition. 

I  have  taken  Ki&xi  here  as  merely  exegetical ;  and  nothing  is  more 
common  than  to  connect  an  exegetical  clause  or  word  to  that  which  pre 
cedes,  by  placing  i  before  it. 

(11)  Now  Daniel,  when  he  knew  that  the  writing  was  completed,  went  to  his  house, 
and  his  windows  were  open  in  his  upper  chamber,  toward  Jerusalem,  and,  three 
times  eath  day  did  he  kneel  upon  his  knees,  and  make  supplication,  and  utter  praise 
before  God,  entirely  as  he  had  done  before  this. 

Writing  was  completed,  lit.  the  writing  was  written.  But  our  idiom  hardly 
admits  such  a  form  of  expression,  at  least  it  would  not  be  allowed  as  good 
usage.  —  "pis ,  pi.  of  13 ,  as  if  from  a  root  yy ,  treated  as  fern,  here,  by  the 
Part,  which  follows  in  the  fern.  plur.  —  n^S  with  suff. ;  comp.  §  29.  2.  5.10, 
but  here  the  noun  has  the  fern,  ending  as  in  §  31.  —  "p?Eti  ,  we  might  trans 
late  the  1  here  by  even,  etiam,  and  it  would  then  serve  to  render  emphatic 
the  number  of  times  that  Daniel  went  to  perform  his  devotions.  But  the 
probable  sense  of  it  is  merely  as  translated  above. — In  his  upper  chamber,  an 
apartment  probably  built  on  the  top  of  the  house,  with  a  roof  of  its  own, 
and  designed  for  retirement;  comp.  2  Sam.  19:  1.  (18:  33  Eng.)  1  K.  17: 
19.  It  was  the  usual  place  for  prayer :  see  Acts  1: 13.  10:  9.  —  To 
ward  Jerusalem,  because  that  was  the  place  where  the  special  presence 
of  God  was  supposed  to  be,  by  every  Hebrew  ;  comp.  for  the  like,  Ps.  5: 
8  (7).  28:  2.  See  the  ground  of  this  practice  adverted  to,  in  Ps.  20:  3  (2). 
So  Solomon,  in  his  prayer,  2  Chron.  6:  34,  and  repeatedly  in  1  K.  8:  33, 
35,  38,  44,  48.  In  like  manner  the  Mohammedans  turn  their  face  to 
ward  Mecca,  in  their  devotions ;  and  the  worshippers  of  Ormusd,  as 
presented  in  Ezek.  8: 16,  looked  to  the  rising  sun,' the  symbol  of  Ormusd. 


164  CHAP.  VI.  12—15. 

In  like  manner,  the  ancient  Christians  used  to  pray  with  their  faces  io- 
ward  the  east  ;  Orig.  Horn.  V.  in  Num.  Bertholdt  accuses  the  writer  of 
mistake  here,  on  the  ground,  (as  he  avers),  that  the  Jews  had  as  yet  no 
such  custom,  and  because  the  temple  was  now  in  ruins.  The  first  objec 
tion  is  clearly  erroneous,  as  the  quotations  above  show  ;  and  the  second, 
of  no  importance.  Was  not  the  ground  where  the  temple  stood  still  sa 
cred  in  their  eyes  ?  And  did  they  not  expect,  according  to  the  prediction 
of  Jeremiah,  that  they  should  return,  and  rebuild  the  temple  ?  —  The 
three  times  of  prayer  are  adverted  to  in  Acts  2:  15.  10:  9.  Dan.  9:  21, 
i.  e.  at  9  o'clock,  A.  M.,  at  12  M.,  and  at  3  P.  M.—  -rpa,  Part.  Peal 
with  pronoun  awn,  §  47.  1.  £.,  strongly  expresses  habit  or  continued  ac 
tion.  —  'W'3'"!3  5  pl-  suff-  °f  Tp?  •  —  NJ>XB  ,  Part.  Pael.  —  tcita  ,  Part. 
Aph.  of  »^  ,  §  20.  2.  c.  —  w  &on  ,  §  47,  a.  —  SIM  has  the  const. 
state  here  before  it,  lit.  a  priori  tempore  hujus  (rei). 

(12)  Then  those  men  came  turn  ultuously,  and  found  Daniel  praying  and  making 
supplication  before  his  God. 


snn  ,  Aph.  like  the  Heb.  Hiphil,  p.  50  near  the  top.  The  b  that  fol 
lows,  marks  the  Ace.  —  "jsrina  ,  Ithpaal  Part.,  like  the  Greek  Mid.  voice, 
making  supplication  for  himself. 

(13)  Then  they  drew  near,  and  spake  before  the  king  respecting  the  royal  prohibition  : 
Didst  thou  not  write  a  prohibition,  that  every  one  who  shall  make  request  of  any  god 
or  man,  during  thirty  days,  except  of  thee,  0  king,  shall  be  cast  into  the  den  of  lions  1 
The  king  answered  and  said  :  The  thing  is  established,  according  to  the  law  of  the 
Medes  and  Persians  which  cannot  be  repealed. 


ip,  §  12.  1.  1.  For  the  sequel,  see  v.  8  above.  —  Krt?a  may  be  ren 
dered  wordy  viz.  what  they  had  just  said,  or  thing,  viz.  the  whole  .affair  as 
represented.  I  have  preferred  the  latter. 

(14)  Then  they  answered  and  said  before  the  king:  Daniel,  who  is  of  the  sons  of 
captive  Jews,  pays  no  regard  to  thee,  O  king,  nor  to  the  prohibition  which  thou  hast 
written,  for  three  times  in  a  day  does  he  make  his  request. 

The  first  i-n  here  is  a  mere  sign  of  words  to  be  quoted.—  D»B  .  .  .  "rpbs  fc^  &6, 
see  on  3:  12.  —  bsi  ,  nor  to,  the  1  following  a  negative  clause,  and  stand 
ing  before  another  in  the  like  predicament,  should  be  translated  nor.  — 
•pirat  ,  pl.  of  "jat  ,  and  used  just  as  we  use  the  word  time  with  a  numeral, 
denoting  repetition.  —  dto  ,  Praet.  Peal,  is  followed  in  construction  by 
the  Part.  K23  ,  instead  of  a  verb  which  our  own  idiom  demands.  Often 
so  in  Chaldee. 

(15)  Then  the  king,  when  he  heard  the  report,  was  much  grieved  on  account  of  it, 


CHAP.  VI.  16—18.  165 

and  he  set  his  heart  upon  Daniel  to  rescue  him,  and  to  the  going  down  of  the  sun  he 
was  contriving  to  deliver  him. 

bs  tab  ,  to  set  one's  heart  or  mind  on  anything,  i.  e.  to  revolve  in  one's 
mind  what  can  be  done  with  it.  Both  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  em 
ploy  bs  in  the  like  sense.  —  ftntariB  ,  root  3tt$  ,  Peel  (instead  of  Pael 
with  Dagh.  £),  p.  52,  note  under  No.  1.  For  the  Inf.  ending,  p.  56.  e.  — 
^•a  ,  occasus,  const,  pi.  of  ^sa  ,  root  bbs?  .  —  i-rwca  ,  Ithpaal  of  Tiia  with 
tranfer  of  \o  .  —  Wttbsft  ,  Inf.  Aph.  of  bxji  ,  with  suff.  form  as  above. 
Beyond  the  setting  of  the  sun,  the  execution  of  the  penalty  could  not  be 
delayed.  In  Persia,  this  usually  follows  the  sentence  without  delay. 

(16)  Then  those  men  came  tumultuously  to  the  king,  and  said  to  the  king  :  Know, 
0  king,  that  to  the  Medes  and  Persians  there  is  a  law,  that  every  prohibition  and  de 
cree  which  the  king  shall  establish,  is  unchangeable. 

91  Imper.  of  91*  .  —  E^J?^.  from  dip  ,  Aph.  Fut.  with  ft  retained,  and 
final  vowel  Tsere  instead  of  the  usual  long  Hhireq  ;  t  hese  vowels  being 
often  interchanged  in  Chaldee.  —  ft^nb  ,  see  in  v.  9.  Inf.  Aph.,  lit.  is 
not  for  changing. 

(17)  Then  the  king  commanded,  and  they  brought  Daniel,  and  cast  [him]  into  the 
lion's  den.     The  king  answered  and  said  to  Daniel  :  Thy  God  whom  thou  servest 
continually,  he  will  deliver  thee. 


i^rpft   Aph.  of  xnx  ,  see  in  §  24.  2.  Aph.  —  Va'n  ,  3  pi.   Peal,  omits 
the  suff.  pronoun  ;  which  omission  is  frequent  in  Chaldee,  in  the  like  cases. 
-  nbQ  ,  Part,  with  final  Pattah,  because  of  the  final  Guttural.  —  TjSSt^ 
p.  58.  Rem.  1. 

(18)  And  a  stone  was  brought,  and  placed  on  the  mouth  of  the  den,  and  the  king 
sealed  it  with  his  signet  and  with  the  signet  of  his  nobles,  that  the  design  respecting 
Daniel  might  not  be  changed. 

n^n^ft  ,  a  pass.  fern,  form  of  Wft  Aph.  of  KPK  .  See  a  plur.  of  the 
same  kind  in  3:  13,  and  the  remarks  there.  Both  forms  are  anomalous, 
and  evidently  stand  for  the  Hophal  of  the  Hebrews  in  regard  to  meaning. 
If  the  forms  are  legitimate,  they  were  probably  made  thus  anomalous, 
(like  many  words  in  all  languages),  by  vulgar  usage.  One  is  at  a  loss  to 
know  whence  such  vowel-points  come,  as  analogies  are  wanting.  —  rraiy 
most  probably  a  Part.  pass,  in  the  room  of  the  usual  fern,  na^to  ,  as  de 
clined  on  p.  51.  These  two  forms  are  sometimes  connected  in  Hebrew, 
e.  g.  2  Sam.  23:  32,  text  rra^to,  Qeri  rralto.  There  is,  at  any  rate,  no 
other  form  of  the  verb  dsiizj  to  which  it  is  so  near  a  resemblance  ;  and  thus 
taken,  it  gives  the  requisite  meaning.  —  X2a  ,  lit.  pit  ;  and  such  was 
doubtless  the  den  of  the  lions.  The  mouth  of  this  pit  seems  to  have  been 


166  CHAP.  VI.  19,  20. 

covered,  and  a  door  or  passage  way  inserted,  through  which  the  lions 
were  fed.  This  door  was  now  closed  and  sealed,  so  that  neither  Daniel's 
friends  might  interfere,  (for  it  was  the  intention  of  the  nobles  to  exclude 
them,  when  they  put  their  seal  on  the  door),  nor  his  enemies  be  permit 
ted  to  annoy  him,  in  case  the  lions  did  not  destroy  him,  (which  seems  to 
have  been  the  king's  design  in  putting  his  own  seal  upon  it).  The  sen 
tence  of  law  was  thus  strictly  executed,  and  an  arrangement  so  made, 
that  there  should  be  no  interference  with  it,  by  the  different  parties  who 
were  actuated  by  different  motives.  —  tt^rrn ,  Perf.  Peal  of  dnn  with 
suff.  fern.,  which  relates  to  "jnx  a  fern.  noun.  —  nrpts>,  his  signet,  i.e.  ? 
ring  on  which  was  fastened  an  engraving  of  the  king's  name.  It  woulo. 
seem  that  wax,  or  some  impressible  substance,  was  placed  on  the  edge  of 
the  stone  door  and  of  the  covering  around  it,  so  that  if  it  were  opened, 
the  seal  would  be  broken,  and  of  course  this  would  be  proof  of  unlawful 
interference.  As  before  suggested,  the  nobles  doubtless  designed  that  the 
king  should  not  interfere,  when  they  put  their  seals  upon  the  stone  door. 
See  the  like  process  in  Matt.  27:  66.  —  ins  =  n*!225 ,  purpose,  design, 
which  is  more  significant  than  the  rendering  of  Ges.,  De  Wette,  and 
others,  viz.,  matter,  affair.  —  8$-^  has  an  intransitive  or  passive  sense, 
and  so  I  have  rendered  it  in  the  version  above. 

(19)  Then  went  the  king  to  his  palace,  and  spent  the  night  in  fasting,  and  his  con 
cubines  were  not  brought  before  him,  and  his  sleep  fled  from  him.  „ 

rva  Praet.  of  wa.  —  r^v,  a  noun  from  froa ,  like  nsfp,  ns^,  etc., 
here  used  in  an  adverbial  way,  or  we  may  regard  it  as  the  Ace.  of  man 
ner.  —  ^rrt ,  plur.  fern,  of  rviitn  ,  from  xrn ,  the  corresponding  Arabic 
verb  meaning  feminam  subegit.  — bs'Sfi  >  one  did  not  bring,  the  verb  hav 
ing  no  subject  expressed ;  of  course  it  is  equivalent  to  the  passive  voice, 
and  so  I  have  translated  it ;  it  is  the  Aph.  of  bbs> ,  for  the  3  see  §  6.  2. 
—  rvn5  Peal  of  Tis,  fled,  comp.  Esth.  6:  1.  —  ^rnbs  ,  bs>  =bx  here,  as 
often  elsewhere  ;  lit.  Aw  sleep  fled  for  him,  like  ^b-~-!  m  Gen.  12: 1,  go 
for  thyself.  This  construction  is  not  unfrequent  after  verbs  of  motion  ; 
comp.  the  like  expression  in  2:  1,  and  the  remarks  upon  it.  All  this  is 
related  to  show  the  sincere  concern  and  regret  of  the  king  for  what  had 
taken  place. 

(20)  Then  the  king  arose  at  early  dawn,  when  it  was  light,  and  went  in  haste  to 
the  lion's  den. 

€>         Y 

K^iB^BiB ,  a  reduplicate  form,  §  28.  b.l  1.  The  Syr.  has  the  simple  l?^.^, 
and  employs  it  in  the  same  sense,  viz.  that  of  early  dawn.  —  NnM  seems 
to  be  equivalent  to  the  preceding  word,  but  is  in  fact  exegetical  of  it ; 


CHAP.  VI.  21—24.  167 

just  as  we  say  :  "  Very  early,  as  soon  as  it  was  light."  —  In  haste,  so 
the  Inf.  noun  fibnanris  (Inf.  of  Ithpaal)  means. 

(21  )  And  when  he  drew  near  to  the  den,  he  cried  out  to  Daniel  with  a  loud  voice  ; 
the  king  answered  and  said  to  Daniel:  Daniel,  thou  servant  of  the  living  God. 
has  thy  God,  whom  thou  servest  continually,  been  able  to  deliver  thee  from  the  lions  ? 


,  Inf.  with  suff.  in  the  same  way  as  a  noun,  §  16.  2.  c.  In 
such  cases  3  means  when  ;  lit.  it  would  run  thus  :  in  accordance  with  the 
drawing  near  of  him.  —  pst  ,  §  12.  1.  1,  also  ib.  2.  1.  The  crying  cohere 
designated,  was  doubtless  a  shout  of  some  kind,  to  see  whether  Daniel 
was  alive  and  would  respond.  In  like  way  we  may  suppose  Daniel  to 
have  responded.  Then  follows  the  address  to  him,  on  the  part  of  the  king. 
—  tf^n  ,  living,  in  the  mouth  of  a  Persian  or  Median  king,  is  not  strange  ; 
for  idolatry  was  proscribed  by  the  Parsis,  and  they  had  neither  temples 
nor  images.  Ormusd,  in  their  view,  was  the  author  of  all  desirable  life. 
But  here  Darius  seems  to  conform  to  the  usual  Heb.  method  of  naming 
their  God.  —  ?3"V3  »  interrogative  n,  and  the  verb  ^5"j  =  ^31  ,  §12.2.1. 


(22)  Then  Daniel  spake  with  the  king  :     0  king,  live  forever  ! 

ypa  ,  Pael,  entered  into  conversation,  spoke  colloquially  ;  for  Hhireq, 
see  12.  1.  1.  —  *rai<  is  omitted  before  Nsba,  and  is  unnecessary. 

(23)  My  God  hath  sent  his  angel,  and  stopped  the  mouth  of  the  lions,  and  they 
have  done  me  no  harm,  because  that  before  him  innocence  was  found  in  me,  and  also 
before  thee,  O  king,  have  1  done  no  harm. 


g.,  his  angel.  Angelic  interposition  is  very  common  in  the  re 
mainder  of  this  book.  Coinp.  John  5:  4.  Acts  12:  11.  Heb.  1:  14,  and 
the  Apoc.  throughout.  —  DQ,  §29.  5.  a,  —  "^sn  Pael  with  suff.  - 
sot  =  rvi2T,  §  29.  6.  a.  §  31.  L  —  ^b,  lit.  for  me,  Dat.  commodi.  Our 
idiom  requires  a  different  mode  of  expression,  viz.  in  me.  —  tt]5*  is  put  be 
fore  a  clause  where  the  sense  is  climactic,  or  at  least  where  a  special  stress 
is  laid  upon  it.  Offence  against  the  king  was,  in  this  case,  the  main  thing  to 
be  disclaimed,  in  order  to  accomplish  his  exculpation.  He  was  not  ac 
cused  on  any  other  ground. 

(24)  Then  the  king  was  very  glad  within  himself,  and  he  commanded  to  raise  up 
Daniel  from  the  den;  and  Daniel  was  raised  up  from  the  den,  and  no  injury  was 
found  on  him,  because  he  trusted  in  his  God. 


might  be  applied  to  Daniel,  and  then  we  must  translate  :  on  his 
account;  but  in  v.  15  above  we  have  ^ibsiTNa  ,  where  the  pronoun 
refers  to  the  same  subject  as  the  verb.  In  the  version  above,  I  have  fol 
lowed  the  analogy  of  the  last  phrase,  in  the  present  case  ;  and  so  Ges., 


168  CHAP.  VI.  25—27. 


Maurer,  Lengerke,  al.  —  fi£Ganb  ,  Aph.  Inf.  reg.  as  to  3  ,  §  18.  Note.  — 
p&n  ,  a  purely  Hophal  form  from  the  same  stem  as  the  preceding  verb, 
p.  50.  6.  —  "pa^i  Aph.  of  "pax,  p.  66,  in  note. 

(25)  And  the  king  commanded,  and  they  brought  those  men,  who  were  the  ac 
cusers  of  Daniel,  and  cast  [them]  into  the  den  of  lions,  them,  their  children,  and  their 
wives  ;  and  they  had  not  come  to  the  bottom  of  the  den,  until  the  lions  had  the  mas 
tery  of  them,  and  crushed  all  their  bones. 


rpn  ,  Aph.  of  xnx  .  For  the  next  clause  see  3:  8.  —  ^?7  ^  >  in 
the  Gen.  ;  for  suff.  pronoun  anticipative  before  this  Gen.,  see  §  40.  3.  a. 
—  i^n  has  its  Ace.  pronoun  implied;  the  ^SX  that  follows  belongs  to  the 
next  clause.  The  version  above  exhibits  this.  —  siobizS  §  12.  1.  1.  — 
ip'nrt  ,  Aph.  of  pp'n  ,  for  Hhireq  under  the  second  radical,  p.  49.  5  ;  or  it 
may  be  a  Hebraizing  form,  see  p.  62,  last  par.  The  representation  de 
signed  to  be  made  is,  that  when  the  accusers  were  cast  into  the  den,  the 
voracious  lions  seized  them  ere  they  struck  the  bottom  of  the  pit,  and 
crushed  them  into  pieces.  As  to  the  frequency  of  the  like  punishment  in 
all  barbarous  countries,  there  can  be  no  manner  of  doubt. 

(26)  Then  Darius  the  king  wrote  to  all  people,  nations,  and  tongues,  who  dwelt  in 
all  the  earth  :  May  your  peace  be  multiplied  ! 


Par.  of  IW  ,  tjie  vowels  are  adapted  to  the  form  "p1^  in  the 
margin.  Appropriately  vocalized  it  would  stand  thus  :  V^X'-j  .  —  The  preg 
nant  meaning  of  the  word  peace,  in  the  Semitic  languages,  is  well  known 
to  all  who  understand  them.  Neither  eiQqrq  nor  salus,  nor  our  word 
peace,  fully  reaches  a  translation. 

(27)  By  me  is  a  decree  established,  that  in  every  principality  of  my  kingdom 
[men]  shall  tremble  and  fear  before  the  God  of  Daniel;  for  he  is  the  living  God,  and 
endureth  forever,  and  his  kingdom  shall  not  be  destroyed,  and  his  dominion  [shall 
be]  unto  the  end. 


For  the  first  clause,  see  3:  29.  —  "i^bd  probably  denotes  the  satrapies 
into  which  the  empire  was  divided,  see  v.  2  above  —  "ji'iib  ,  see  2:  20.  — 
"pSXt  from  >>;n  ,  vowels  as  above  in  'p'nx'jT.  The  continued  action  ex 
pressed  by  these  participles  with*  the  verb  of  existence,  is  very  apparent 
here.  —  Q^  "ft  ,  the  same  as  "JTS  or  a  ,  but  the  fashion  of  the  Chaldee  is 
to  multiply  such  particles.  We  may  translate  :  fear  before  his  God,  or 
Be  afraid  of  his  God.  The  pronoun  suff.  after  nbx  is  superfluous 
with  us,  but  gives  a  specific  hue  to  the  Chaldee  representation  ;  §  40.  3.  a. 
—  X'lH  ,  he  is,  §40.  1.  o*p?  enduring,  is  a  participial  adjective,  §  28. 
b.  6.  I  have  translated  it  as  a  verb,  in  order  to  conform  to  our  idiom.  — 
ia  ,  lit.  his  kingdom  is  what  (or  that  wJiicli)  shall  not  be  destroyed. 


CHAP.  VI.  28,  29.  169 

Exact  conformity  to  this,  in  our  idiom,  would  be  incongruous.  —  Unto  the 
end  seems,  at  first  view,  to  be  the  same  as  f£  in  12:  13  ;  and  so  it  is  un 
derstood  by  Lengerke,  and  Ges.  (in  Lex.)  seems  to  regard  it  in  the  same 
light.  Havernick  says  it  is  equivalent  to  E^isb  ;  C.  B.  Mich.,  that  it 
means  the  end  of  the  world.  But  a  due  consideration  of  the  person  who 
speaks,  will,  as  it  seems  to  me,  give  the  phrase  a  different  turn.  The 
Hebrew  ideas  of  the  end  of  the  world,  or  of  the  end  of  the  ante-Messianic 
period,  the  Median  king  probably  did  not  entertain  ;  and  end  of  life,  (an 
idea  that  might  be  expressed  both  by  Hebrews  and  Persians  by  the  use 
of  such  a  word),  is  inappropriate  here.  The  Parsis  expected  the  world 
would  end  in  12,000  years.  But  even  these  years  did  not  make  an  end 
to  the  reign  of  Ormusd,  and  so  it  is  not  probable  that  Darius  assigned 
such  limits,  in  the  present  case.  Having  just  said  (of  the  God  of  Daniel), 
that  he  endures  forever,  it  is  obvious  that  he  means  to  make  his  dominion 
as  enduring  as  God  himself  is  ;  so  that  we  come  to  the  necessary  conclu 
sion,  that  xs'lD  is  is  but  another,  although  less  accurate,  form  of  ex 
pressing  the  idea  contained  in  the  preceding  'pnbsrb  above.  Obviously 
the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  XBib  is  ,  on  the  supposition  that  the 
speaker  did  not  suppose  a  real  end  would  ever  actually  come.  But  if  he 
did  believe  this,  even  then  the  expression  designates  at  least  an  undefined 
period,  to  which  no  one  can  set  limits. 

(28)  It  is  he,  that  rescues,  and  delivers,  and  does  signs  and  wonders  in  heaven 
and  on  earth,  who  hath  delivered  Daniel  from  the  power  of  the  lions. 


St^iaia  ,  Part.  Aph.  of  stiB  .  —  bstta  ,  Part.  Aph.  from  b^5  ,  retaining 
the  Heb.  form  of  Hiphil,  p.  50,  near  the  top.  —  Signs,  as  usual,  means 
remarkable  or  miraculous  exhibitions.  —  TH"?1?  >  P^  °f  ^n  >  means 
those  things  which  excite  wonder  in  the  beholders.  —  In  heaven  and 
on  earth  =  everywhere,  or  in  all  places.  —  ^aib  ,  Ace.  after  rpfttj  .  In 
this  last  word,  the  first  syllable  is  written  defectively,  the  last  fully. 
The  reverse  is  usually  the  case,  e.  g. 


(29)  And  this  same  Daniel  was  promoted  during  the  reign  of  Darius,  and  during 
the  reign  of  Cyrus  the  Persian. 


ribsn ,  lit.  was  prosperous,  Aph.  with  an  intrans.  sense,  §  10.  4.  2.  The 
idea  connected  with  this  is,  promotion  to  a  place  of  honor  and  profit. 

Thus  ends  the  historical  part  of  the  book  of  Daniel.  It  is  easy  to  see 
that  the  object  of  the  writer  has  not  been,  to  give  a  regular  and  complete 
history,  either  of  the  Babylonish  kings,  of  their  successor,  or  of  Daniel 
himself.  Those,  and  only  those,  events^  are  noticed,  which  make  for  the 

15 


170  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  VI. 

purpose  of  the  writer ;  and  this  is,  to  exhibit  a  God  working  wonders 
among  those  who  held  the  Hebrews  in  bondage,  in  order  to  fill  them  with 
respect  for  this  people,  and  to  prepare  the  way  for  their  final  liberation. 
Most  plainly,  moreover,  is  it  a  part  of  the  design  of  the  writer,  to  commend  a 
steadfast  adherence  to  the  principles  and  practice  of  piety  and  virtue  amidst 
the  trials  and  temptations  to  which  this  people  was  subjected.  The  religious 
and  ethical  design  of  the  narrations  presented  in  the  book  before  us,  lies 
upon  the  very  face  of  it,  and  no  one  should  hesitate  to  avow  this.  But 
to  prove  that  all  this  was  calculated  and  designed  merely  for  the  times  of 
the  Maccabees,  is  quite  another  matter,  and  seems  to  me  to  have  very 
little  probability  in  its  favor. 

[As  everywhere,  in  the  hook  of  Daniel,  critics  of  the  New  School  have 
here  been  on  the  watch  for  the  supposed  haltings  of  the  writer.  In  the 
present  case,  indeed,  we  find  a  full  proportion  of  them  alleged.  I  shall 
briefly  touch  only  upon  those  which  seem  to  be  worthy  of  any  grave  notice. 

(l)  '  The  very  outset  of  the  story  in  ch.  vi.  contains  a  palpable  mis- 
statement,  or  at  least  an  error  which  betrays  the  author's  ignorance  of 
Medo-Persian  history.  He  represents  Darius  as  having  appointed  120  sa 
traps  over  his  kingdom  ;  which  far  exceeds  all  bounds  of  truth,  and  even  of 
probability.' 

But  why  so  ?  The  answer  is,  that  *  Cyrus  appointed  only  six,  (Cyrop. 
VIII.  6.  1,  comp.  VIII.  5.  19),  when  the  empire  was  still  larger  than  in  the 
time  of  Darius  ;  and  that  even  under  Darius  Hystaspis,  when  Thrace  and 
hither  India  had  been  conquered,  there  were  only  twenty,'  Herod.  III. 
89  seq.  —  What  then  were  these  satraps  ?  The  name  is  Zend  (see  Lex. 
D'^Sp.'nirnx),  and  the  origin,  therefore,  either  Median  or  Persian.  The  of 
fice  was  at  first  that  of  a  mere  superintendent  of  tribute  or  revenue ;  to 
which  a  general  inspection  of  the  king's  affairs  and  interests  was  appended. 
The  military  of  each  province  was  under  its  own  appropriate  officers.  In 
the  sequel,  however,  the  satraps  won  to  themselves  both  offices.  It  is  per 
fectly  clear,  from  Herod.  III.  89,  that  mere  geographical  limits  were  not 
regarded  in  the  arrangement  of  the  Satrapies,  but  only  the  convenience  of 
the  revenue  and  of  the  government-affairs.  Of  course,  officers  of  this  cast 
must  always  have  existed,  under  every  form  of  the  despotic  governments  of 
theEast,whether  the  name  in  question  is  of  earlier  or  later  origin.  At  all  events 
we  find  the  name  in  the  time  of  Cyrus,  and  therefore  it  is  quite  probable 
that  it  existed  under  that  of  Darius.  The  extent  of  jurisdiction  was  a  mat 
ter  that  lay  entirely  with  the  sovereign  to  prescribe  ;  and  the  number  of  sa 
traps,  therefore,  depended  on  his  will.  How  then  can  it  be  shown,  that 
Darius  could  not  have  appointed  120  satraps,  because  Cyrus  had  6,  and 
Darius  Hystaspis  20  ?  Certain  we  are,  that  the  successor,  of  this  last  king 
"  reigned  over  127  provinces,"  Est.  1:1.  That  each  of  these  had  governors 
or  satraps,  needs  not  to  be  proved.  Every  one  acquainted  with  ancient  Medo- 
Persian  history  knows,  that  to  the  satraps  belonged  VJIUQXOI,  i.  e.  sub- 
satraps  ;  and  it  would  be  of  course  at  the  pleasure  of  a  writer,  whether  he 
would  include  or  exclude  these,  when  he  employed  the  word  satraps.  It  is 
impossible,  then,  to  convict  the  author  of  the  book  before  us  of  incorrectness, 


UNIVERSITY 


EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  VI. 


when  he  states  the  fact  that  Darius  appointed  120  satraps  ;    for  if  Xerxes 
had  127,  he  may  have  appointed  120. 

Besides  this,  it  would  seem  very  probable,  that  the  six  satraps  of  Cyrus, 
and  the  twenty  of  Darius  Hyst.,  were  of  the  same  grade  as  the  three  T^l^ 
mentioned  in  6:  3.  The  extensive  conquests  of  Cyrus,  after  he  became 
sole  monarch,  would  naturally  demand  an  increase  of  these  ;  and  so  six 
were  appointed.  Darius  Hyst.  made  extensive  conquests  in  Thrace  and  in 
India,  which  may  naturally  have  given  rise  to  an  increase  of  that  number. 
As  a  satrapy  depends  not  on  national  limits,  nor  on  that  of  tribes,  but  only 
on  the  conveniences  of  government,  so  it  is  impossible  to  convince  our  au 
thor  of  either  ignorance  or  falsification.  On  the  contrary,  the  minuteness 
of  statement  respecting  the  three  general  officers,  and  the  leading  member 
or  head  of  this  little  corps,  and  the  care  of  the  revenue  which  was  committed 
to  them,  indicates  a  familiarity  of  the  writer  with  the  matters  in  question. 
Such  an  objection,  therefore,  owes  its  existence,  as  it  would  seem,  more  to 
the  zeal  than  to  the  enlarged  and  accurate  views  of  those  who  oppose  the 
genuineness  of  the  book  before  us. 

(2)  '  But  the  decree  of  Darius,  that  no  request,  for  thirty  days,  should  be 
made  of  God  or  man,  except  of  himself —  this  decree  which  could  proceed 
only  from  the  inmate  of  a  madhouse  —  is  a  thing  utterly  incredible.'  Leng. 
p.  271  seq. 

He  might  indeed  well  deserve  a  madhouse,  rather  than  a  palace,  who  could 
make  such  a  decree.  But  as  to  the  improbability  of  the  matter,  it  is  not  quite 
so  easy  to  make  that  out.  Parsism  taught  its  votaries  to  reverence  the  king 
as  the  symbol  or  personification  of  Ormusd.  When  Themistocles  fled  from 
Athens  to  Persia,  and  wished  to  be  presented  to  the  king,  the  courtier  Arta- 
banus  said  to  him  :  "  It  is  our  custom  ...  to  honor  the  king,  and  worship  the 
image  of  God  who  preserves  all  things,"  Plutarch,  in  Themistoc.  c.  27. 
Xenophon  (Agesil.)  blames  the  Persians,  because  "  they  thought  themselves 
worthy  of  enjoying  the  honors  of  the  gods."  Isocrates  (Panegyr.,  in  Brisson. 
De  Reg.  Pers.)  censures  them,  "  because  they  worship  a  mortal  man,  and 
call  him  a  divinity  (dalpova),  and  had  rather  treat  the  gods  with  neglect 
than  their  fellow  men."  Arrian  (VI.  29)  and  Q.  Curtius  (Vit.  Alex.) 
both  give  an  account  of  sacrifices  and  divine  honors  paid  to  Cyrus,  at  his 
tomb  in  Pasargadae.  Q.  Curtius  (VIII.  5)  says  :  Persas  reges  suos  inter  deos 
colcre.  Alexander,  in  imitation  of  the  Persian  kings,  required  divine  honors 
to  be  paid  him,  on  his  entrance  into  Babylon.  De  Sacy  (Mem.  de  1'Inst.  II. 
p.  184,  188)  observes,  that  the  Persian  kings  call  themselves  "  the  celestial 
germ  of  the  race  of  the  gods."  On  the  ruins  of  Persepolis,  kings  are  evi 
dently  presented  as  objects  of  adoration.  Grotefend  has  found  on  one  in 
scription  :  Stirps  mundi  rectoris.  In  fact,  the  matter  is  beyond  all  doubt. 
Parsism  did  not  indeed  require  men  to  regard  the  king  as  a  god  in  his  own 
proper  nature,  but  to  pay  him  supreme  homage  as  the  representative  of  Or 
musd.  Such  being  the  state  of  the  case,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  account  of 
Darius'  behavior,  when  he  was  importuned  by  his  courtiers  and  nobles,  wears 
no  special  marks  of  improbability.  That  the  Cyaxares  of  Xenophon  was  a 
weak,  vain,  and  ambitious  man,  is  abundantly  evident,  if  the  picture  which 
the  Greek  historian  has  drawn  of  him  be  acknowledged  as  a  likeness.  The 
plan  of  Daniel's  enemies  was  dexterously  formed.  Daniel,  the  courtiers  had 
good  reason  to  believe,  would  not  swerve  from  his  religion.  Darius  could  be 


172  EXCURSUS  ON  CHAP.  VI. 

easily  persuaded,  as  they  believed,  to  admit  not  merely  the  ordinary  homage 
that  was  paid  to  him  as  monarch,  but  an  extraordinary  one,  which  exalted 
him  above  all  other  kings.  Doubtless  the  whole  thing  was  managed  by  the 
utterance  of  many  and  flattering  professions  of  reverence  and  honor  toward 
the  king.  As  he  was  addicted  to  an  excessive  use  of  wine,  it  is  not  improb 
able  that  the  affair  was  transacted  near  tbe  close  of  a  banquet.  "  Worthy 
of  a  madhouse"  it  surely  was ;  but  as  to  its  wearing  the  stamp  of  utter  im 
probability,  or  even  of  any,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  discover  where  or  what  that 
stamp  is.  Many  a  decree  from  drunken  despots,  has  been  more  outrageous 
than  this,  and  even  equally  absurd.  Has  not  Lengerke  read  the  history  of  a 
Nero,  a  Caligula,  a  Genghis  Khan,  or  Aga  Mohammed  Khan  ?  The  inten 
tion  of  the  king  was,  to  gratify  his  own  vanity.  He  did  not  dream  of  the 
consequences ;  as  is  evident  from  the  whole  of  his  subsequent  demeanor. 
Lengerke  has  summoned  up  eight  objections  against  the  verity  of  ch.  vi. 
The  first  is,  that  there  was  never  any  such  king  as  Darius  the  Mede.  The 
second,  that  the  country  was  not,  at  that  period,  divided  into  satrapies. 
(These  have  already  been  considered  above).  The  third  is  the  one  just 
canvassed.  The  fourth  is,  that  '  the  phrases  living  God,  and  unto  the  end 
(XS"G  ^5),  in  v.  27,  savor  of  Jewish  conceptions,  and  not  of  Persian  or  Me 
dian  ones  ;  and  of  course  Darius  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  employed  them 
in  his  proclamation.'  But  if  we  consider  the  intercourse  he  had  with  Daniel, 
and  the  state  of  mind  in  which  he  was,  after  witnessing  his  preservation, 
there  would  seem  to  be  little  in  this  objection.  Besides,  that  a,Parsi  should 
speak  of  the  living  God  and  his  endless  rule,  would  be  nothing  strange. 

(5)  '  Daniel  must  have  been  a  sheer  fanatic,  to  suppose  he  could  be  safe  in  the 
lion's  den.'    And  so,  in  Lengerke's  view,  are  all  men  who  believe  in  miracles. 

(6)  '  The  description  of  the  lion's  den,  shows  that  it  came  not  from  an  eye 
witness.'    But  how,  or  why,  we  are  not  informed  ;  and  since  we  are  not  able  of 
ourselves  to  discover  the  incongruity  alleged,  we  must  wait  for  its  development. 

(7)  '  The  decree,  at  the  close  of  the  chapter,  bears  the  stamp  of  most  incredi 
ble  intolerance.'     But  how  ?     It  calls  on  the  subjects  of  the  king  to  do  reve 
rence  to  the  God  of  Daniel ;   but  it  does  not  bid  them  to  forsake  their  own 
religion,  nor  compel  them  to  become  Jews,  nor  even  annex  a  penalty  for 
disobedience  to  the  mandate.     Where  is  the  persecution  or  the  intolerance  ? 
And  even  if  we  should  find  both  in  the  decree,  how  is  it  to  be  proved,  that 
a  man  so  freakish  and  ever-changing  as  Darius,  could  not,  or  did  not,  com 
mit  such  a  deed  ?    His  indignation  against  the  accusers  of  Daniel  was  very 
strong ;  and,  abating  the  usual  barbarity  of  the  East  in  destroying  whole 
families  for  an  offence  of  the  head,  was  just.     In  that  state  of  mind,  it  is 
easy  to  see,  that  he  might  have  taken  the  part  of  Daniel  very  strongly. 

(8)  'The  lions  could  not  live  in  a  pit,  where   there  was  no  air;  and  a 
second  miracle  was  needed  to  keep  them  alive,  as  well  as  Daniel.'     So  ! 
And  was  then  the  covering  over  the  pit  so  compact  that  no  air  was  admitted, 
and  no  light  ?    This  would  at  least  be  a  singular  way  of  managing  the  royal 
menagerie  —  unknown,  I  apprehend,  to  all  the  later  managers  of  like  estab 
lishments. 

To  complete  the  whole,  Lengerke  avers,  that  "  any  miracle  here,  in  a 
general  view  of  the  subject,  would  not  be  less  destitute  of  all  good  purpose, 
nor  less  against  the  divine  economy,  than  the  signs  and  wonders  of  ch.  iii — v." 
So  we  also  may  believe ;  but  then  we  may  likewise  believe,  that  the  won- 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII.  173 

ders  related  there,  and  in  ch.  vi,  had  a  highly  important  end  in  view,  and 
were  neither  destitute  of  special  design,  nor  against  the  divine  economy. 
If  there  be  any  force  in  the  objection,  it  rests  entirely  upon  assuming  the 
position,  that  miracles  are  impossible  and  absurd.  But  such  an  assumption 
can  hardly  be  called  a  legitimate  argument. 

I  merely  add,  in  view  of  such  objections  as  these,  that  one  must  needs 
feel  himself  hard  pressed,  in  order  to  resort  to  them.  It  is  a  confession 
which  imports,  that  he  who  makes  it  is  conscious  of  weakness  in  his  cause. 
One  thing,  however,  such  objections  do  show,  which  is,  a  determination  at 
all  adventures  to  destroy  the  credit  of  the  book.  Simple  candor,  and  con 
sciousness  of  a  good  cause,  are  not  apt  to  lead  men  to  employ  argumentation 
so  captious.] 


CHAPTER  VII.    INTRODUCTION. 

[!N  the  remarks  made  upon  the  symbol  of  the  colossal  statue  seen  in  the 
dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (ch.  ii.),  no  particular  discussion  was  entered 
upon  respecting  the  four  great  empires.  Mere  hints  were  thrown  out,  and 
it  was  assumed,  that  in  all  probability  the  Babylonish  and  the  Medo-Persian 
empires  were  symbolized  by  the  head  and  breast  of  the  image ;  that  the 
abdomen  and  loins  represented  the  dominion  of  Alexander  the  Great ;  and 
finally  that  the  legs  and  feet  were  symbols  of  that  intermingled  and  con 
fused  empire,  which  sprung  up  under  the  Grecian  chiefs  who  finally  suc 
ceeded  him.  To  this  conclusion  I  have  been  forced  to  come,  after  an  atten 
tive  consideration  of  the  various  schemes  of  interpretation  that  have  been 
proposed  and  urged.  As  this  must  have  an  important  influence  on  my  views 
respecting  the  prophecies  that  follow,  I  feel  bound  to  lay  before  the  reader, 
the  reasons  which  have  led  me  to  adopt  such  a  conclusion.  This  I  shall  do 
as  briefly  as  the  nature  of  such  a  controverted  case  admits.  And  in  order  to 
do  it  briefly,  I  feel  compelled  to  depend  on  reasons  drawn  almost  wholly 
from  the  book  itself.  A  priori  reasoning,  in  this  case,  the  basis  of  which  is 
an  assumption  of  what  we  ought  to  expect  from  the  pen  of  Daniel ;  or  rea 
soning  borrowed  merely  from  the  Christian  fathers,  who  assumed  as  a  part 
of  their  basis,  that  the  Romish  Antichrist  was  before  the  mind  of  the  prophet ; 
we  cannot  assume  without  examination,  if  we  would  keep  our  exegetical 
conscience  quiet.  There  is  no  expositor  of  an  author,  so  legitimate  and 
authoritative  as  himself.  And  it  is  by  an  appeal  to  Daniel  himself,  that  I 
hope  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  explain  Daniel.  If  this  may  be  done,  it  is  not 
worth  while  to  occupy  our  time  with  either  relating  or  refuting  the  almost 
numberless  schemes  of  interpretation  which  have  been  applied  to  the  book 
before  us.  Long  ago  was  it  said,  (and  with  sound  common  sense),  that  The 
best  way  to  refute  error ,is  to  teach  the  truth.  If  a  subject  can  be  made  plain, 
and  withal  be  so  presented  as  to  convince  and  satisfy  the  mind,  it  becomes 
unnecessary  to  dwell  upon  all  the  discrepant  views  that  have  been  taken 
of  it,  or  to  describe  the  causes  which  operated  to  produce  them,  or  to  refute 
one  by  one  in  detail  the  errors  that  have  been  committed.  It  would  occupy 
a  volume  by  itself  to  do  this,  on  the  present  occasion. 

15* 


174:  INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 

In  order  to  throw  upon  the  subject  now  before  us  the  light  which  the 
book  of  Daniel  itself  affords,  it  becomes  necessary  to  compare  with  each  other 
the  various  representations  which  are  made  of  the  same  things  or  persons. 
What  is  obscure  to  us  in  one  passage,  may  thus  perhaps  be  fully  illustrated 
by  another ;  what  in  one  case  is  expressed  only  in  a  generic  way,  may  be 
found  sufficiently  specific  in  another  to  remove  all  uncertainty.  It  is  in  this 
way,  that  we  proceed,  or  at  least  should  proceed,  with  difficult  passages  in 
any  book  whatever,  either  sacred  or  profane ;  and  in  like  manner,  and  for 
a  like  purpose,  do  we  compare  the  different  Evangelists  with  each  other. 

Before  I  engage  in  this  process  of  comparison,  I  would  premise  a  few 
general  remarks,  to  which  I  would  hope  a  general  assent  will  not  be  denied, 
(l)  The  book  of  Daniel  is  not  to  be  regarded  either  in  the  light  of  a  gene 
ral  syllabus  of  civil  history,  nor  even  in  that  of  a  particular  history  of  the 
four  empires  named.  The  Assyrian  empire  is  not  touched  upon  at  all  in  it, 
nor  that  of  India,  or  China,  or  Tartary ;  not  to  speak  of  European  and 
African  kingdoms  in  general.  And  with  regard  to  Babylon,  Persia,  Greece 
(in  the  personal  conquests  of  Alexander),  and  the  mixed  dominion  which  is 
fourth  in  order,  nothing  more  than  mere  out-line  sketches  are  given,  which 
may  suffice  to  identify  the  empires  in  view.  To  this  there  is  but  one  excep 
tion,  which  is  the  Syrian  part  of  the  fourth  dominion.  The  sketch  of  this  is 
more  particular  ;  but  that  which  occupies  more  room  here  than  all  the  rest, 
is  the  description  of  Antiochus'  Epiphanes  and  his  deeds.  Such  being  the 
state  of  facts,  the  reason  or  ground  of  such  a  course  in  the  writer  of  the  book, 
becomes  quite  apparent.  It  is  the  people  of  God,  the  Hebrew  nation,  which 
is  everywhere  the  highest  and  ultimate  object  of  the  writer.  Those  dynas 
ties  only  which  have,  or  will  have,  a  special  concern  with  the  Hebrews,  are 
touched  upon ;  and  these  are  brought  successively  into  view,  down  to  the 
time  when  deliverance  from  disasters,  little  short  of  those  occasioned  by  the 
Babylonish  exile,  shall  have  been  completed.  Subsequent  and  temporary 
invasions  of  Palestine,  which  wrought  no  essential  and  permanent  change 
in  the  state  or  affairs  of  the  Jews,  are  not  in  any  degree  noticed.  The 
writer's  plan  or  design  evidently  does  not,  in  any  degree,  resemble  a  regu 
lar  chronological  history,  or  annals  that  both  preserve  the  order  of  time  and 
record  all  particular  events  which  are  worthy  of  notice.  Daniel  gives  mere 
outlines,  rapid,  striking,  brief,  generic.  It  is  evident  that  his  design  is  mainly 
a  religious  one.  The  people  of  God ;  the  foreign  sway  to  which  they  are, 
and  are  to  be,  subjected ;  the  period  in  which  a  second  Nebuchadnezzar 
shall  lay  waste  Jerusalem  and  profane  the  sanctuary ;  the  leading  trials 
through  which  the  Hebrews  must  pass  before  the  Messianic  period  com 
mences  —  these  are  the  topics  concerned  with  the  prophetic  part  of  the  book 
of  Daniel.  Above  all,  the  second  great  catastrophe  to  the  Jewish  nation, 
under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  which  in  some  respects  was  more  grievous 
than  that  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  is  that  which  is  most  particularly  and 
graphically  set  forth  ;  and  with  this  the  writer  concludes  his  development  of 
Jewish  history,  excepting  that  the  introduction  of  the  subsequent  Messianic 
period  is  here  and  there  set  forth,  and  placed  in  a  very  striking  light.  In  a 
word,  ch.  vii — xii.  might  be  justly  characterized  by  giving  them  the  title  : 
SKETCHES  OF  THE  LEADING  EVENTS  PREPARATORY  TO  THE  MESSIA 
NIC  PERIOD.  The  nucleus  lies  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream  (ch.  ii.)  ;  the 
development  in  ch.  vii — xii.  Great  errors  in  the  exegesis  of  this  book  may 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII.  175 

be  committed,  by  either  ascribing  too  much  to  its  design,  (which  is  the  com 
mon  error),  or  else  too  little. 

(2)  The  reader  must  not  look  here  for  the  common  traits  of  regular  an 
nals,  which  are  found  in  a  book  merely  historical.     Here  (in  vii. — xi.)  all 
is  prophetical.     It  has  the  costume  of  prophecy,  and  is  replete  with  figura 
tive  language  and  with  symbol.     It  gives  leading  characteristics  of  an  em 
pire  by  a  single  sentence,  without  minute  specification  ;  sets  up  no  chrono 
logical  boundaries  to  the  respective  kingdoms  ;  presents  simply  changes  and 
transitions  of  empire  without  any  detail  of  the  means  by  which  they  are 
brought  about ;  and  introduces   those  empires,  and  only  those,  which  are 
concerned  with  the  Jewish  people.      As  a  whole,  these  productions   are 
merely  generic  and  prophetic  pictures  of  the  mutable  and  perishable   em 
pires  that  have  concern  with  the  Hebrews,  until  the  Messianic  period,  so 
as  materially  to  affect  them  for  good   or  for  ill.     The   Persian   dominion 
affects  them  mostly  for  good,  (see  Ezra  and  Nehemiah)  ;  that  of  Alexander 
indeed  scarcely  touches  them,  but  it  prepares  the  way  for  an   empire  (the 
Syrian),  which  most  of  all  persecuted  and  injured  them.     The  prophetic 
part  of  Daniel,  I  readily  concede,  is  not  regular  Hebrew  poetry  as  to  its 
form  ;  but  it  is  poetic  in  its  spirit  and  imagery,  like  Ezekiel,  and  Zechariah, 
and  the  Apocalypse,  and  demands  the  application   of  poetical   exegesis  in 
order  to  interpret  it.     A  part  of  the  llth  chapter  is  the  only  exception  to 
be  made   to  these   remarks ;  where  the   representation  is   so  historically 
graphic,  that  Porphyry  and  others,  specially  many  of  the  recent  critics,  have 
even  brought  against  it  the  charge   of  being   written  post  eventum.     The 
particularity  of  the  description  here  fully  shows,  how  prominent  in  the  wri 
ter's  mind  were  the  cruelty  and  persecutions  of  the  !~JT33 ,  i.  e.  Antiochus 
Epiphanes. 

(3)  The  reader,  who  wishes  to  discover  with  certainty  the   real  empires 
that  are  the  subject  of  prediction  in  the   book  before   us,  should  carefully 
investigate  the  particular  period,  when  they  will  individually  and  severally 
have  all  passed  away.     The  Messiah's  empire,  as  is  clearly  and  repeatedly 
asserted,  is  to  be  built  on  their  ruins.     It  succeeds  them  all,  in  order  of  time 
and  of  events.     So  chap.  ii.  vii.  xii.  plainly  represent  the  matter.     And  if 
so,  this  will  be  one  decisive  test,  as  to  the  empires  brought  into  view  by  the 
prophet.     That  they  are  Asiatic  empires,  although  some  of  them  are  swayed 
by  men  of  Grecian  origin,  seems  to  lie  upon  the  face  of  the  book,  and  ac 
cords  with  the  nature  of  the   case.     In   the   time  of  Daniel,  Rome  was  a 
petty  State  of  Italy,  and  was  scarcely  known,  still  less  feared,  in  Palestine 
or  in  Babylon.     It  is  not  the  manner  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  to  concern 
themselves  with  the  history  of  nations  or  empires  sustaining  no  relation  to 
the  Hebrews.     It  is  true,  indeed,  that  some  sixty  years  before  the  birth  of 
Christ,  Palestine  was  overrun  by  Pompey  ;  and  in  the  sequel  it  was  made 
an  allied  province.     But  it  was  not  until  after  the  Christian  era  had  begun, 
that  it  was  deprived  of  its  kings,  and  subjected  to  a  Romish  governor.     Nor 
did  the  Romans  undertake  to  crush  it,  until  about  A.  D.  6  7.     The  book  of 
Daniel  "  prepares  the  way  of  the  Lord."     The  coming  of  the  Messiah  is  its 
main  design ;  and  the  state  and  circumstances  of  the   Jews,  until  that  pe 
riod,  are  passed  in  brief  and  rapid  review. 

With  the  considerations  in  view  that  have  now  been  suggested,  we  may 
next  proceed  with  the  development  of  THE  FOUR  GREAT  EMPIRES. 


176 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 


The  FIRST  is  thus  described  : 

I.  37,  "  Thou,  O  king,  art  king  of  kings, 
to  whom  the  God  of  heaven  hath  given 
dominion,  strength,  and  power  and  glory; 
(38)  And  wherever  dwell  the  sons  of  men, 
the  beast  of  the  field,  or  the  fowl  of  the 
air,  into  thy  hand  hath  he  given  [them], 
and  made  thee  ruler  over  all ;  thou  art  that 
head  of  gold." 


VII.  4,  "  The  first  was  like  a  lion,  and 
it  had  the  wings  of  an  eagle ;  I  looked 
attentively  until  its  wings  were  plucked, 
and  it  was  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  and 
stood  upon  its  feet  as  a  man,  and  the  heart 
of  a  man  was  given  to  it." 


That  the  four  empires  in  chap.  vii.  are  the  same  as  in  chap,  ii.,  has 
scarcely  been  denied  by  any.  The  last  clause  in  2:  38  makes  it  certain 
that  Babylon  with  its  head  is  the  metropolis  of  the  first  empire.  The  past, 
i.  e.  the  time  of  Hebrew  subjection  to  the  Assyrian  empire,  is  entirely 
omitted.  Prophecy  occupies  itself  with  the  present  and  the  future.  Daniel 
therefore  begins  with  Babylon.  It  is  not  so  much  the  person  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  as  his  dynasty  —  his  empire  — with  which  2:  37,  38,  are  concerned. 
The  head  of  gold  refers  to  the  colossal  image  described  in  2:  31,  32.  The 
splendor  of  the  Babylonish  monarchy  is  plainly  indicated  by  the  gold  :  for 
Babylon  exceeded  all  other  ancient  cities  in  its  wealth  and  splendor.  It  is 
put  at  the  head  of  the  four  monarchies  principally  because  it  begins  the 
prophetic  series,  and  not  in  order  to  denote  its  superiority  over  them  as  to 
extent  or  power.  In  7:  4,  the  imagery  is  quite  diverse,  and  the  lion,  the 
leader  or  chief  among  the  beasts,  is  the  symbol.  Great  power  and  ma 
jesty  are  doubtless  indicated  by  this,  as  well  as  destructive  conquests  by 
means  of  which  they  are  obtained.  The  wings  of  an  eagle  indicate  velocity 
and  strength ;  which  were  peculiarly  characteristic  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
movements  and  conquests.  The  plucking  of  the  wings,  the  assumption  of 
the  upright  position  of  a  man,  and  the  acquiring  of  the  heart  of  a  man,  are 
all  indications  of  the  humbling  of  the  Babylonish  pride  and  power,  and  of 
reducing  her  rulers  to  moderation  and  reason  in  their  measures.  The  lan 
guage  employed  to  indicate  this,  seems  plainly  borrowed  from  the  humbling 
process  through  which  the  haughty  Nebuchadnezzar  passed,  during  his 
mania,  until  he  was  restored  to  reason  and  humanity.  In  other  words,  the 
empire  is  portrayed  in  colors  borrowed  from  the  individual  who  mainly 
established  it. 

This  is  all  we  have  in  the  prophetic  part  of  Daniel  concerning  the  first 
empire.  Chap.  viii.  xi.  entirely  omit  this  empire,  while  they  enlarge  much 
upon  the  third  and  fourth.  About  this  first  empire,  however,  there  is  no 
controversy,  or  none  worth  notice. 

THE  SECOND  EMPIRE.  Different  is  the  case  in  respect  to  this.  Some 
regard  it  as  the  Median  empire  ;  some  as  the  Medo-Persian,  and  others  as 
that  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  successors  in  Babylon.  If  the  reader  will  have 
patience,  he  may,  as  I  think,  be  satisfied  in  respect  to  this  matter.  In 
chap.  ii.  vii.  the  description  is  quite  brief. 

II.  39,  "  And  after  thee  shall  arise  an- 1  VII.  5,  "  And  behold  another  beast, 
other  kingdom  inferior  to  thee."  j  Tike  to  a  bear,  and  it  stood  up  on  one  side, 

j  and  three  ribs  were  between  its  teeth,  and 
to  it  they  said  thus  :  Arise,  devour  much 
!  flesh." 


Chap.  ii.  gives  no  other  clue  to  the  meaning  than  that  of  mere  succession. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VIT.  177 

At  first  view,  it  seems  as  if  it  were  intended  to  designate  the  Babylonish 
successors  to  the  throne  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  for  the  language  is :  after 
thee.  But  then  comes  the  expression  :  another  kingdom  (not  king),  by 
which  of  course  must  be  meant  a  different  empire  from  the  Babylonish; 
and  the  whole  taken  together  shows,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  is  only  consid 
ered  and  spoken  of  as  the  representative  of  the  Babylonish  empire.  Hence 
inferior  to  thee,  must  mean,  inferior  to  thee  as  to  dominion.  If  now  we  fix 
upon  mere  extent  of  territory  as  the  point  of  comparison,  whether  we  take 
into  view  the  Median  or  Medo-Persian  empire,  it  would  be  difficult  to  make 
out  the  correctness  of  the  description.  We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that 
the  inferiority  in  question  has  respect  to  energy  and  executive  efficiency,  in 
bearing  down  all  opposition  and  crushing  all  who  resist.  And  in  regard  to 
this,  we  can  easily  credit  the  assertion  of  the  text.  Nebuchadnezzar  over 
ran  all  hither  Asia  and  Egypt  between  607  and  604  B.  C.,  while  Cyrus 
and  Cyaxares  were  more  than  ten  years  in  subduing  Croesus  and  his  allies. 
Cyrus  was  indeed  a  brave  and  skilful  warrior ;  but  resistless  impetuosity 
and  energy,  like  those  of  the  Babylonian  conqueror,  could  not  well  be 
ascribed  to  him.  As  to  his  successors,  it  is  true  that  Darius  Hystaspis  en 
larged  the  boundaries  of  the  empire  in  Thrace  and  India ;  but  he  lost 
ground  in  Greece  and  Scythia  ;  and  Xerxes  was  wholly  defeated  by  only 
a  part  of  the  little  States  of  Greece.  Thenceforth  the  Persian  empire  was 
on  the  decline.  The  inferiority  in  question  seems  then  to  have  a  special 
relation  to  energy  and  efficiency. 

As  to  the  symbol  in  7:  5,  the  bear  is  a  fierce  and  rabid  animal,  and  may 
well  symbolize  rapacity  for  dominion  and  conquest,  such  as  characterized 
Cyrus  and  his  next  three  followers.  The  devouring  of  much  flesh  refers  to 
the  great  destruction  of  life  occasioned  by  frequent  invasions  and  conquests. 
The  three  ribs  in  the  mouth  seem  to  be  indicative  of  a  rapacity  to  devour  ; 
and  the  particular  ground  of  the  number  three  here,  (unless  indeed  it  be 
used  in  a  tropical  way),  seems  to  be  the  three  divisions  of  the  empire  made 
by  Darius  the  Mede,  after  the  conquest  of  Babylon,  6:  3  (2).  These  the 
bear  has  within  his  grasp,  and  they  are  of  course  at  his  disposal.  The  call 
to  devour  more,  seems  to  allude  to  the  subsequent  extensive  conquests  of 
Cyrus.  —  As  to  the  position  of  the  bear,  kneeling  with  one  foot  and  stand 
ing  up  with  the  other,  it  graphically  denotes  that  the  beast  is  on  the  alert, 
ready  to  observe  and  speedily  to  spring  upon  its  prey.  What  illustrates 
and  confirms  this  heretofore  dark  passage  is,  that  on  the  ruins  of  Persian 
monuments  a  symbolic  animal  is  found  sculptured  in  this  very  position ; 
thus  showing  that  it  was  in  all  probability  one  of  the  symbols  on  the  insignia 
of  the  Median  and  Persian  dominion  ;  see  Mlinter,  Relig.  der  Bab.  p.  112. 
and  Tab.  iii. ;  also  Fundgruben  des  Orients,  III.  Tab.  2,  fig.  3,  and  specially 
Layard's  Ruins  of  Nineveh.  Indeed,  a  little  consideration  of  this  matter 
will  serve  to  show,  that  there  is  much  significancy  in  the  symbol.  The  po 
sition  of  the  animal  indicates  watchfulness  and  a  degree  of  repose  com 
bined.  By  it  the  Persian  monarch  could  signify,  that  while  his  enemies 
•were  not  deemed  important  or  powerful  enough  to  call  forth  all  his  ener 
gies  and  keep  him  in  a  state  of  excitement,  yet  they  might  be  assured  that 
he  was  not  unobservant  of  them,  or  unprepared  for  them. 

But  thus  far  we  have  obtained  nothing  which  determines  with  any  cer- 


178 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 


tainty,  whether  the  Median  or  the  Medo-Persian  dynasty  is  intended, 
remains,  therefore,  to  compare  other  passages  in  chap.  via.  xi. 


It 


VIII.  3,  "Behold!  a  ram  standing  be 
fore  the  river,  and  it  had  two  horns ;  and 
the  horns  were  high,  but  the  one  was 
higher  than  the  other,  and  the  higher  one 
sprang  up  after  [the  other].  (4)1  saw  the 
ram  pushing  westward,  and  northward, 
and  southward,  and  none  of  the  beasts 
could  stand  before  him.  nor  could  any  one 
deliver  out  of  his  hand ;  and  he  did  as  he 
pleased,  and  waxed  great.  ( 5 )  And  while 
I  was  considering,  behold,  a  he-goat  came 
from  the  west,  on  the  face  of  all  the  earth, 
and  he  touched  not  the  ground ;  and  the 
he-goat  had  a  notable  horn  between  his 
eyes.  (6)  And  he  came  to  the  ram  which 
had  the  two  horns,  which  I  had  seen  stand 
ing  before  the  river,  and  ran  to  him  in  his 
strong  indignation.  (7)  And  I  saw  him 
approaching  near  the  ram,  and  he  became 
enraged  at  him,  and  he  smote  the  ram, 
and  brake  his  two  hofns ;  nor  was  there 
strength  in  the  ram  to  stand  before  him, 
but  he  cast  him  down  to  the  earth,  and 
trod  upon  him ;  nor  was  there  any  to  de 
liver  the  ram  out  of  his  hands." 


[Explanation  by  the  angel  interpreter.] 
VIII.  20,  "  The  ram  which  thou  sawest, 
having  two  horns,  is  the  kings  of  Media 
and  Persia.  (21)  And  the  he-goat  is  the 
king  of  Greece;  and  the  great  horn  be 
tween  his  eyes  is  the  first  king." 


[Further  development  in  chapter  xi.] 
XI.  2,  "And  now  will  I  show  thee  the 
truth :  Behold,  there  are  yet  three  kings  c 
Persia  who  will  stand  up ;  and  the  fourtl. 
will  acquire  great  riches,  and  when  he  be 
comes  powerful  by  his  wealth,  he  will  stir 
up  all  the  dominion  of  Greece,  (3)  And 
a  mighty  king  shall  stand  up,  and  he  shall 
rule  an  extensive  dominion,  and  do  ac 
cording  to  his  pleasure.  (4)  And  when 
he  shall  stand  up,  his  kingdom  shall  be 
broken  in  pieces,  and  it  shall  be  separated 
to  the  four  winds  of  heaven." 


It  is  not  within  my  present  design  to  descend  to  minuteness  in  the  ex 
planation  of  words  and  phrases  ;  for  this  belongs  to  the  commentary.  I 
shall  confine  myself  to  general  and  obvious  remarks.  (1)  The  composite 
nature  of  the  dominion  of  the  ram  is  evident,  for  it  lies  upon  the  very  face 
of  the  symbol.  Two  horns  are  given  him  ;  and  the  one  of  these  which  was 
highest,  grew  up  last ;  i.  e.  the  Persian  domination,  which  became  alto 
gether  predominant  under  Cyrus,  followed  that  of  the  Medes,  which  had 
then  lasted  some  200  or  more  years,  Persia  being  at  that  time  only  a  pro 
vince.  The  rapid  march  of  Alexander,  and  his  resistless  impetuosity  and 
fierceness,  are  most  graphically  and  undeniably  set  forth  in  8:  4 — 7.  (2)  If 
any  doubt  could  remain,  it  is  removed  entirely  by  vs.  20,  21.  (3)  More 
firmly  still  is  it  established,  that  the  Persian  or  Medo-Persian  dominion  next 
precedes  Alexander's  empire,  by  11:  2 — 4.  In  this  last  case,  a  historical  no 
tice,  connected  with  the  rise  of  Alexander's  invasion,  is  inserted.  Xerxes, 
the  fourth  from  Cyrus,  (the  prophecy  is  dated  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus' 
reign,  10:  1,  and  the  three  kings,  therefore,  yet  to  rise  up,  must  be  Cam- 
byses,  Smerdis,  and  Darius),  rouses  up  all  Greece  by  his  invasion.  The 
spirit  thus  excited  never  slept,  but  afterwards  broke  out  in  the  invasion  of 
the  Persian  dominion  by  Alexander.  In  11:  2  the  kings  are  naturally 
named  kings  of  Persia,  because  the  writer  designed,  in  the  case  before  him, 
to  name  only  the  predominating  part  of  the  kings  of  the  second  empire,  and 
because  the  later  horn  is  the  higher  one.  But  in  8:  20,  the  same  kings, 
whose  dynasty  is  overthrown  by  the  king  of  Greece,  are  named  kings  of 
Media  and  Persia.  All  this  is  plain,  when  we  follow  Xenophon  and  the 
Bible.  The  troops  who  took  Babylon  were  Medes  and  Persians.  They 
were  led  by  Cyrus,  while  Cyaxares  or  Darius  the  Mede  retained  the  nomi- 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 


179 


nal  and  theoretical  sovereignty  of  the  new  empire.  In  the  person  of  Cyrus 
both  governments  and  both  nations  found  their  king.  Hence  the  expres 
sion  :  laws  of  the  Persians  and  Medes,  in  the  book  of  Eslher,  during  the 
reign  of  the  fourth  king,  mentioned  in  Dan.  11:  2.  From  the  nature  of  the 
case,  it  is  evident,  that  Media  and  Persia  may  be  combined,  and  spoken  of 
as  one  kingdom  ;  as  they  clearly  are  in  8:  20.  5:  28.  6:  9,  13,  16,  (Eng.  8, 
12,  15).  And  this,  as  appears  from  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Esther,  was 
the  common  usage  at  court.  For  particular  purposes,  however,  it  is  equally 
plain,  that  Darius  the  Mede  (6:  1,  Eng.  5:  31),  and  Cyrus  the  Persian  (6: 
29,  Eng.  28),  might  be  spoken  of,  when  reference  was  had  to  the  sources 
whence  they  respectively  sprung.  Moreover,  since  the  later  horn  was 
higher  than  the  other  (Dan.  8:  3),  the  king  of  Persia  was  also  a  common 
appellation  among  the  Hebrews  who  returned  from  exile.  So  in  2  Chron. 
36:  22,  23.  Ezra  1:  1,  2,  8.  3:  7.  4:  3,  5  al. ;  and  so,  Darius,  king  of  Persia, 
Ezra  4:  5,  and  Artaxerxes,  4:  7.  In  Ezra  5:  13,  Cyrus,  king  of  Babylon. 

It  would  seem,  then,  from  a  comparison  of  all  these  passages,  that  no  rea 
sonable  doubt  can  remain,  that  the  second  dominion,  (the  silver  breast  and 
arms  of  the  colossal  statue  in  chap,  ii.),  is  the  Medo-Persian.  The  insignifi 
cancy  of  Darius  the  Mede  ;  the  fact  that  he  in  person  took  no  active  part 
in  the  conquest  of  Babylon,  and  reigned  there  only  some  two  years,  all 
conspired  to  throw  Cyrus  into  prominent  notice,  and  to  make  him  the 
principal  subject  of  remark,  whenever  the  change  of  dominion  is  spoken  of. 
Still  more  certain  will  this  become,  provided  it  can  be  shown,  that  Alexan 
der's  dominion  is  the  third  in  the  series  of  the  four  monarchies ;  for  the 
third  of  course  succeeds  the  second  ;  and  if  the  third  destroyed  the  second, 
and  Alexander  is  the  representative  of  the  third,  and  it  was  he  who  de 
stroyed  not  the  Median,  but  the  Medo-Persian  empire,  then  our  conclusion 
seems  inevitable.  Our  next  inquiry  then  will  be  directed  to  the 

THIRD  DOMINION.     This  is  exhibited  in  chap.  ii.  vii.  as  follows  : 


II.  39,  "  And  another  kingdom  of  brass 
[shall  arise],  which  shall  rule  over  all  the 
earth." 


VII.  6,  ll  And  after  this  I  looked  stead 
fastly,  and  behold  another  [beast]  like  to 
a  panther,  and  it  had  four  wings  of  a  bird 
on  its  back,  and  there  were  four  heads  to 
the  beast,  and  dominion  was  given  to  it." 

In  2:  39,  the  wide  extent  of  dominion  is  the  only  thing  which  is  designated. 
Nothing  more  is  to  be  deduced  from  the  brass,  than  that  it  differs  as  to  ma 
terial  from  the  symbols  of  the  two  preceding  kingdoms,  in  order  to  show 
that  it  is  symbolic  of  a  kingdom  diverse  from  them.  As  to  7:  6,  a  panther 
stands  next  to  the  lion  in  agility  and  strength,  has  even  more  swiftness,  and 
is  not  less  fierce  or  blood-thirsty.  If  the  wings  on  the  lion  (7:  4)  indicate 
velocity  of  movement,  as  they  plainly  appear  to  do,  then  two  pair  of  wings 
on  the  panther  indicate  an  intense  degree  of  velocity.  This  and  nothing 
more  seems  to  be  the  import  of  double  pairs  of  wings.  How  characteristic 
this  is  of  Alexander  the  Great,  during  his  conquests,  needs  not  to  be  shown. 
The  four  heads,  however,  present  a  symbol  of  more  difficulty.  We  cannot 
resort  to  Apoc.  17:  3,  9,  10,  for  explanation;  for  there  the  seven  heads  are 
symbols  of  Roma  septicollis,  and  also  of  its  first  seven  emperors.  Alexan 
der  had  no  proper  successors  (Dan.  11:  4),  and  he  was  himself,  strictly 


180  INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP  VII. 

speaking,  the  beginning  and  end  of  his  empire  ;  so  that  the  four  heads  of 
the  panther  cannot  denote  four  successive  kings  of  the  third  dynasty.  Many 
refer  these  heads  to  the  four  monarchies  which  eventually  sprang  up  among 
the  successors  of  Alexander.  But  if  the  third  dynasty  ceased  with  Alex 
ander,  such  an  application  would  be  quite  incongruous.  The  third  beast 
must  symbolize  the  third  empire,  and  not  the  fourth.  The  sequel  moreover 
will  show,  that  the  dynasty  of  Alexander  is  plainly  separated  from  that  of  his 
generals.  If  we  resort  once  more  to  the  Apocalypse,  (which  is  intimately 
connected  by  its  style  and  symbolic  imagery  with  the  books  of  Daniel),  we 
shall  there  find  a  case  of  a  like  nature,  which  cannot  be  applied  to  any 
succession  of  kings.  In  Rev.  12:  3,  the  great  dragon  (who  is  the  devil,  v. 
9),  is  said  to  have  seven  heads,  and  seven  crowns,  with  ten  horns.  Plain 
it  must  be,  in  this  case,  that  the  heads  and  crowns  and  horns,  (the  numbers 
seven  and  ten  being  taken  in  their  tropical  sense),  denote  great  power  and 
dominion.  Accordingly  Jesus  himself  calls  Satan  the  prince  of  this  world 
(John  12:  31.  14:  30)  ;  and  so  does  Paul  speak  in  Eph.  6:  11,  12 ;  he  also 
names  Satan  the  god  of  this  world,  in  2  Cor.  4:  4.  The  four  heads,  there 
fore,  must  be  regarded  as  designating  dominion  in  the  four  quarters  of  the 
world ;  just  as,  when  the  third  dynasty  is  broken,  it  is  said  to  be  "  scattered 
to  the  four  winds  of  heaven,"  11:  4.  I  speak  of  the  four  quarters  of  the 
world,  on  the  assumption  that  the  number  four,  applied  to  heads  in  our 
text,  is  intended  to  have  a  special  significancy.  But  I  doubt,  in  reality, 
whether  anything  more  than  mere  intensity  of  meaning  was  designed  by 
the  writer.  As  four  wings  are  indications  of  great  rapidity,  so  four  heads 
seem  to  be  the  corresponding  indications  of  great  or  extensive  power.  But 
it  may  mean  somewhat  more  ;  and  if  so,  it  must  indicate,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  dominion  in  all  quarters ;  for  among  the  Hebrews,  the  four  cardinal 
points  are  all  th:tt  have  a  name,  and  they  embrace  all  the  rest.  What  ob 
jection  can  well  be  made  to  this  view,  when  2:  38  represents  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  or  the  first  dynasty,  by  the  symbol  of  the  head  of  the  colossal  image  ? 
As  in  the  Apocalypse  seven  is  a  predominating  number,  so  in  Daniel  four 
seems  to  be  employed  in  a  like  manner.  Thus  there  are  four  dynasties  ; 
a  fourth  king  of  Persia  invades  Greece,  11:  2;  the  panther  has  four  wings, 
and  the  like.  Each  book,  as  to  the  use  of  numbers  in  a  tropical  way,  con 
forms  to  its  own  particular  custom. 

But  we  have  not  done  with  this  matter.  We  have  yet  to  compare  chap, 
viii.  xi.,  in  order  to  complete  our  view.  In  both  these  cases,  the  dynasty 
of  Babylon  is  omitted,  and  the  writer  begins  with  the  Medo-Persian ;  see 
8:  3 — 7.  11:  2.  Of  course  the  dynasty  which  is  third  here  next  follows  the 
Medo-Persian  ;  and  this  next  following  one  is  that  of  Alexander.  This  is 
thus  represented  : 

VIII.  5,  uLo!  a  he-goat  came  from  XI.  3,  "And  there  shall  stand  up  a 
the  West,  on  the  face  of  all  the  earth,  and  mighty  king,  and  he  shall  hear  rule  over 
he  touched  not  the  ground ;  and  the  he-  a  great  dominion,  and  he  will  do  accord- 
goat  had  a  notable  horn  between  his  eyes,  j  ing  to  his  pleasure.  (4)  And  when  he 
(6)  And  he  came  to  the  ram  which  had  .  shall  stand  up,  his  kingdom  shall  be  broken 
the  two  horns,  which  I  had  seen  standing  in  pieces,  and  it  shall  be  divided  toward 


before  the  river,  and  ran  to  him  in  his 
strong  indignation.     (7)  And  I  saw  him 


the  four  winds  of  heaven  ;  but  not  to  his 
posterity,  nor  according  to  the  dominion 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 


181 


approaching  near  the  ram,  and  he  became  of  his  rule,  but  his  kingdom  shall  be 
enraged  against  him,  and  he  smote  the  plucked  up,  and  given  to  others  besides 
ram,  and  broke  his  two  horns,  and  there  these.'' 
was  no  strength  in  the  ram  to  stand  be 
fore  him ;  but  he  cast  him  down  to  the 
earth  and  trode  upon  him,  nor  was  there 
any  one  to  deliver  the  ram  out  of  his  hand. 
(8)  And  the  he-goat  waxed  exceedingly 
great;  and  when  he  became  strong,  the 
great  horn  was  broken  in  pieces,  and  there 
came  up  to  view  four  horns  in  its  room, 
toward  the  four  winds  of  heaven." 

The  coming  from  the  West,  the  rapidity  of  the  movement,  and  the  nota 
ble  horn,  are  all  characteristic  of  Alexander.  Moreover  we  are  not  left 
here  to  any  doubt.  The  angel-interpreter  leads  the  way  : 

VIII.  20,  "  The  ram  which  thou  sawcst,  having  two  horns,  are  the  kings  of  Media 
and  Persia.  ( 21 )  And  the  he-goat  is  the  king  of  Greece  ;  and  the  great  horn  be 
tween  his  eyes  is  the  first  king.  (22)  Now  as  to  that  which  was  broken,  and  four 
stood  up  in  its  room  —  four  kingdoms  shall  stand  up  out  of  the  nation,  but  not  in 
his  power." 

In  8:  8  above,  the  third  empire  is  represented  as  broken  to  pieces  when 
at  the  height  of  its  power.  Such  was  notoriously  the  case  with  Alexander's 
dominion.  His  death  caused  the  empire  to  fall  in  pieces.  In  vain  was  his 
son  nominated  as  successor.  The  aspiring  chiefs  of  the  conquering  army 
sought  for  kingly  power,  rather  than  to  be  provincial  governors  or  satraps. 
But  it  is  in  8:  22,  23,  and  in  11:  4,  that  we  learn  the  relation  of  the  suc 
ceeding  kingdom  to  this.  In  8:  22,  the  third  dynasty  is  represented  as 
broken  to  pieces;  and  in  11:  4,  as  scattered  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven. 
Chap.  8:  8  says  of  the  new  kings  that  arise,  that  they  are  toward  the  four  winds 
of  heaven;  and  in  8:  22,  they  are  declared  to  be  of  Grecian  origin.  In  8: 
22,  these  kings  are  said  not  to  possess  his  (Alexander's)  power;  and  11:  4 
asserts,  '  that  his  kingdom  shall  not  be  given  to  his  posterity,  and  that  the 
fourth  dominion  shall  not  be  like  the  other.'  Again,  it  confirms  all  this  by 
a  reassertion  :  "  His  kingdom  shall  be  plucked  up,  and  given  to  others  be 
sides  these,"  viz.  to  others  different  from  his  posterity.  How  language  can 
more  strongly  declare,  that  Alexander's  dominion  differs  from  that  which 
follows,  and  that  it  ends  with  his  destruction,  I  do  not  see.  The  fact  that 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  springs  from  the  dynasty  that  next  follows  (7:  8.  8: 
8 — 12,  22 — 25.  11:  4,  21  seq.)  ;  that  this  dynasty  is  so  complex  that  no 
specific  beast  is  named  which  can  symbolize  it  (7:  7,  19)  ;  and  that  it  arises 
out  of  the  ruins  of  Alexander's  dynasty  (8:  8,  9,  22)  ;  seem  to  settle  the 
question  where  the  fourth  dynasty  is  to  be  sought  for.  We  shall  see  how 
all  this  is  confirmed  by  a  view  of  the 

FOURTH  DYNASTY.  The  materials  for  comparison  are  somewhat  copi 
ous  ;  but  the  matter  is  too  important  to  omit  anything  that  may  cast  light 
upon  it. 


II.  40,  "  And  a  fourth  dominion  shall 
be  strong  as  iron,  altogether  as  iron  that 
crushes  and  grinds  to  pieces  everything 
—  even  as  iron  that  dashes  to  pieces,  all 
these  will  it  crush  and  dash  to  pieces. 


VII.  7,  "  Behold !  a  fourth  beast,  terri 
ble  and  mighty  and  very  powerful,  it  had 
large  teeth  of  iron,  it  devoured  and  crushed, 
and  trampled  the  remnant  under  foot; 
and  it  differed  from  all  the  other  beasts 


16 


182  INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 

(41 )  And  since  thou  sawest  the  feet  and  |  that  were  before  it,  and  it  had  ten  horns, 
toes,  a  part  of  them  the  clay  of  the  potter,  (8)  I  considered  attentively  those  horns, 
and  a  part  of  them  iron,  the  dominion  and  lo !  another  little  horn  rose  up  among 
shall  be  divided,  and  there  shall  be  of  the  them,  and  three  of  the  former  horns  did  it 
firmness  of  iron  in  it,  inasmuch  as  thou  (root  out  from  before  it;  and  behold!  there 


sawest  iron  mingled  with  the  whitish  clay. 
(42)  And  since  the  toes  of  the  feet  were 
partly  of  iron  and  partly  of  clay,  in  part 
the  dominion  shall  be  strong,  and  in  part 
it  shall  be  brittle.  (43)  Since  thou  sawest 
the  iron  mingled  with  the  whitish  clay, 
they  shall  intermingle  the  seed  of  men, 
but  they  shall  not  cleave  together,  this 
with  that,  see  !  even  as  iron  cannot  min 
gle  with  clay." 


were  eyes  like  the  eyes  of  a  man  in  that 
horn,  and  a  mouth  speaking  great  things. 
(9)  I  continued  looking,  until  the  tribu 
nals  were  set,  and  the  Ancient  of  Days 
was  seated.  ...(11)  I  continued  looking, 
on  account  of  the  voice  of  the  great  words 
which  the  horn  uttered,  I  looked  until  the 
beast  was  slain,  and  its  body  destroyed, 
and  it  was  given  to  the  flaming  fire." 


In  connection  with  the  passage  from  7:  7 — 11,  is  an  account  of  the  per 
plexity  of  spirit  into  which  Daniel  was  thrown,  by  the  vision  there  related, 
and  of  his  application  to  the  angel-interpreter  in  order  that  he  might  ex 
plain  to  him  the  vision  of  the  fourth  beast ;  for  this  seems  specially  to  have 
troubled  his  mind,  and  filled  him  with  apprehension.  Then  follows  the 
angel's  answer : 

VII.  23,  "  Thus,  he  said,  shall  be  the  fourth  beast ;  a  fourth  kingdom  shall  arise 
in  the  land,  which  shall  differ  from  all  other  kingdoms,  and  shall  consume  the  whole 
land,  and  beat  it,  and  crush  it  in  pieces.  (24)  And  as  to  the  ten  horns  of  that  do 
minion,  ten  kings  shall  arise,  and  another  shall  arise  after  them,  and  he  shall  be  dif 
ferent  from  the  former,  and  three  kings  shall  he  humble.  (25)  And  words  against 
the  most  High  shall  he  utter,  and  he  shall  destroy  the  saints  of  the  most  High,  and  he 
shall  think  to  change  times  and  law;  and  they  shall  be  given  into  his  hand,  for  a 
time  and  times  and  a  division  of  time.  (26)  And  the  tribunal  shall  be  seated,  and 
his  power  shall  be  taken  away,  even  to  lay  waste  and  destroy  [it]  unto  the  end." 

To  this,  as  in  chap,  ii.,  succeeds  the  fifth  or  Messianic  kingdom.  Omitting 
this  for  the  present,  let  us  now  recapitulate  the  main  points  in  these  re 
presentations  of  the  fourth  dynasty.  In  2: 40 — 42,  we  have  three  leading  ideas ; 
(l)  The  oppressive  and  crushing  power  of  the  dynasty.  (2)  An  incongruous 
mixture  of  the  various  sovereignties  which  constitute,  collectively  consider 
ed,  the  fourth  dynasty.  That  on  which  it  stands  (the  feet  and  toes,  v.  41),  in 
other  words,  its  basis,  consists  of  materials  that  will  not  combine.  (3)  The  vain 
attempts  by  intermarriage-alliances,  to  cement  any  permanent  union.  The  spe 
cial  significancy  of  this  is  not  developed,  until  we  come  to  the  eleventh  chapter. 
In  7:  7 — 11,  the  symbol  of  the  fourth  dynasty  is  changed.  A  beast  terrible 
and  powerful  is  the  image.  But  this  beast  has  no  name  like  the  three  pre 
ceding  ones.  The  reason  is  obvious.  This  dynasty  has  not  one  monarch, 
but  many.  These  were  so  far  from  harmonizing  together,  that,  like  iron 
and  clay,  they  could  not  possibly  be  combined  in  a  symmetrical  whole.  Of 
course,  only  some  monster  beast,  of  which  the  natural  world  furnished  no  ex 
ample,  must  be  supposed  in  this  case  —  a  beast  possessing  parts  or  quali 
ties  at  variance  with  each  other.  Ten  horns  are  given  to  it,  and  these  are 
symbols  of  ten  kings.  (The  monuments  in  Middle  Asia  now  present  an 
abundance  of  the  like  monsters,  quite  significant  in  their  way,  but  having  no 
prototypes  in  nature).  After  these  springs  up  a  little  horn,  which  roots 
out  three  of  the  others.  Sagacity  of  management  and  blasphemous  inso 
lence  are  ascribed  to  it.  After  being  tolerated  for  a  while,  divine  justice 
and  indignation  destroy  it.  In  the  explanation  (7:  23 — 26),  the  same 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII.  183 

ideas  are  for  substance  repeated,  and  some  particulars  are  added,  in  order 
to  enlarge  and  illustrate.  It  speaks  also  in  still  stronger  language  of  the 
destructive  power  of  this  monster.  The  ten  horns,  the  subsequent  appear 
ance  of  the  eleventh,  and  the  subjugation  of  three  out  of  the  ten,  are  nearly 
the  same  in  both  passages ;  while  the  boasting  and  blasphemous  character 
of  the  new  king  is  portrayed  in  a  stronger  light  in  vs.  23  —  26.  He  not 
merely  speaks  great  things,  but  he  utters  them  against  the  most  High. 
Here  too  comes  in  a  further  elucidation  of  his  destructive  power,  when  we 
are  told  against  whom  it  is  to  be  exercised,  viz.  he  will  destroy  the  saints 
of  the  most  High.  In  connection  with  this,  also,  another  addition  is  made 
to  the  original  picture :  "  He  shall  think  to  change  times  and  law ;  and 
they  shall  be  given  into  his  hand,  for  a  time,  and  times,  and  a  division  of 
time,"  i.  e.  for  three  years  and  a  half.  All  this,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  a 
striking  and  faithful  portrait  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  too  striking  to  ad 
mit  of  any  doubt.  Finally,  as  in  7:  7 — 11,  it  is  declared  that  he  shall  be 
destroyed  by  divine  justice  and  indignation.  The  tribunal  before  which 
the  tyrant  is  summoned,  condemns  him  to  utter  excision  ;  and  the  sentence 
is  carried  into  execution. 

With  this  ends  the  sketch  of  the  fourth  dynasty,  in  this  vision.  The 
Messianic  reign  then  follows.  With  regard  to  this,  both  the  vision  in  chap, 
ii.  and  the  one  in  chap.  vii.  agree  ;  and  with  both  these  agrees  the  expla 
nation  by  the  angel ;  7:  23 — 26. 

We  must  not  fail  to  mark  here  the  gradation  of  the  prophetic  develop 
ment.  In  2:  40 — 42,  the  fourth  dynasty  is  rapidly  and  generically  sketched 
by  mere  general  outlines,  which  are,  however,  of  a  diagnostic  nature.  The 
turbulence  of  this  fourth  dominion,  the  irreconcilable  feuds  of  its  leading 
chiefs,  and  a  declaration  of  their  vain  efforts  to  bring  about  peaceable 
alliances  by  intermarriages,  are  the  distinctive  marks  of  it.  But  there  is  a 
specialty  in  what  is  said  of  the  iron,  which  "  grinds  and  crushes  in  pieces" 
all  which  it  assails.  Surely  the  writer  does  not  mean,  that  this  fourth  do 
minion,  comparatively  considered,  so  far  exceeds  in  its  destructive  power 
all  which  had  preceded  it,  that  the  ravages  in  general  committed  by  them 
may  be  passed  over  in  silence,  when  brought  into  comparison  with  those  of 
the  fourth  dynasty.  Facts  speak  against  such  an  assumption.  Of  the 
ravages  and  slaughter  perpetrated  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  we  have  indeed  no 
minute  historical  account.  But  they  must  have  been  very  great,  consider 
ing  the  extent  of  country  which  he  overran.  Those  committed  by  Cyrus 
and  his  successors,  no  doubt,  far  exceeded  his,  as  they  were  more  often 
repeated  and  of  longer  duration.  As  to  Alexander,  we  know  well  the  de 
vastation  and  ruin,  that  attended  his  long  continued,  rapid,  and  victorious 
aggressions.  But  of  all  these,  neither  chap.  ii.  nor  vii.  make  any  special 
mention.  Why  ?  Because  they  do  not  respect  the  people  of  God,  on  whom 
the  prophet  ever  has  his  eye.  What  they  suffered  under  the  Babylonish 
domain,  had  in  great  part  already  passed.  They  appear  to  have  lived  at 
Babylon,  without  any  special  molestation  or  persecution,  other  than  what 
naturally  befel  all  exiles.  Under  the  Persian  monarchy,  with  some  little 
annoyance  by  Cambyses  or  Smerdis,  they  were  the  subjects  of  remarkable 
favor  throughout.  Alexander,  on  his  march  to  the  East,  paid  them  a  visit ; 
but  he  did  them  no  harm.  At  first,  and  for  sometime,  they  experienced 
no  very  hostile  treatment  from  the  chiefs  of  the  fourth  dynasty,  i.  e.  from 


184  INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 

those  two  chiefs,  which,  being  almost  perpetually  at  variance  with  each 
other,  lived  on  the  north  and  south  of  Palestine.  But  this  country  was  un 
fortunately  the  arena  of  contest  between  them,  and  the  Jews  experienced 
of  course  a  great  variety  of  trials,  in  their  efforts  to  keep  a  neutral  position. 
As  these  efforts  were  not  always  successful,  the  aggrieved  party  would 
make  incursions  upon  Judea.  Finally  that  reckless  tyrant,  Antiochus 
lfcjitqp«*/jj£,  (whom  his  subjects  very  significantly  named,  'j&r^nmyft  i.  e.  the 
mad-man),  invaded  them  with  the  spirit  of  rankling  vengeance  and  of 
blasphemy,  and  he  maltreated  and  destroyed  them  not  only  beyond  all  for 
mer  example,  but  even  beyond  any  example,  until  the  final  destruction  of 
the  Hebrew  Commonwealth.  Here  then  is  the  plain  and  palpable  reason, 
why  the  fourth  dynasty  (which  includes  Antiochus)  is  described  as  being 
powerfully  destructive,  in  a  manner  not  asserted  of  any  of  the  preceding 
dynasties.  This  view  makes  it  quite  obvious,  that  the  description  of  the 
destructive  power  of  the  fourth  dynasty  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  absolute, 
nor  as  designed  to  be  compared  with  the  other  dynasties,  but  only  as  having 
a  relation  to  the  people  of  God,  and  to  the  country  where  they  dwelt.  The 
Roman  power  did  not,  until  long  after  the  time  of  Antiochus,  attain  to  an 
amplitude  of  dominion  that  could  be  compared  with  that  of  either  of  the 
four  dynasties.  Much  less  did  it  occasion  the  Jews  any  very  serious  trou 
ble,  until  the  time  of  Vespasian,  some  thirty  years  after  the  Messianic  reign 
had  begun  its  development. 

The  representation  now  made  in  general  of  the  subject  before  us,  I  can 
not  help  regarding  as  fundamentally  authorized  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
book  of  Daniel.  General  history  it  clearly  is  not ;  the  particular  history  of 
either  of  the  dynasties  it  as  clearly  is  not,  with  the  single  exception,  that 
;the  fourth  dynasty,  one  half  of  whose  chiefs  lived  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Palestine,  and  which  alone  gave  the  Jews  (after  the  time  when  the  book  of 
Daniel  has  been  usually  supposed  to  be  written)  comparatively  all  their 
trouble,  is  in  part  brought  upon  the  scene,  and  identified  by  quite  a  series 
of  historical  particulars,  in  chap,  xi.,  such  as  appear  nowhere  else  on  the 
pages  of  prophetic  writing.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  mistake  the  little 
horn  of  7:  8,  24.  The  context  is  so  entirely  decisive  with  regard  to  the 
Syrian  tyrant  and  blasphemer,  that  there  seems  to  be  no  room  for  critical 
doubt. 

But  we  have  not  completed  our  view.  Daniel  resumes  the  subject  again 
in  chap,  viii.,  and  chap.  xi.  We  must  follow  his  steps,  and  see  what  addi 
tional  evidence  can  be  brought  to  light. 

VIII.  8,  "And  the  he-goat  [Alexan-  [Explanation  by  the  angel-interpreter], 
der]  waxed  exceedingly  great ;  and  when  V11I.  20,  "  And  the  ram,  which  thou  saw- 
he  was  strong  the  great  horn  was  broken,  j  est  with  two  horns,  are  the  kings  of  Me- 


and  there  came  up  the  appearance  of  four 
horns  in  its  plaee,  toward  the  four  winds 
of  heaven.  (9)  And  from  one  of  them 
came  forth  a  little  horn,  and  it  waxed  very 
large  toward  the  south,  and  toward  the  east, 
and  toward  the  goodly  land.  ( 10)  And  it 
waxed  great  even  to  the  host  of  heaven, 
and  it  cast  down  to  the  earth  some  of  the 
host  and  some  of  the  stars,  and  trod  upon 
ihcm.  (11)  And  even  to  the  Prince  of  the 
host  did  it  magnify  itself,  and  from  him 


dia  and  Persia.  (21)  And  the  he-goat  is 
the  king  of  Grecia,  and  the  great  horn  be 
tween  his  eyes  is  its  chief  king.  ( 22 )  And 
as  to  its  being  broken,  and  four  standing 
up  in  the  place  of  it  —  there  shall  stand 
up  four  kingdoms  from  the  nation,  but 
not  in  his  strength.  (23)  And  in  the  lat 
ter  part  of  their  reign,  when  transgressors 
are  come  to  the  full,  a  king  of  cruel  aspect 
shall  stand  up,  and  one  who  understands 
dark  things.  (24)  And  his  power  shall 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 


185 


did  it  take  away  the  daily  sacrifice,  and  be  strong,  yet  not  by  his  own  strength ; 
the  dwelling  of  his  sanctuary  was  cast  and  he  shall  destroy  wonderfully,  and 
down.  (12)  And  a  host  was  set  over  the  prosper,  and  do  [his  will] ;  and  he  shall 
daily  sacrifice  by  impiety,  and  it  cast  destroy  the  mighty,  even  the  holy  people, 
down  truth  upon  the  earth,  and  did  [its  (25)  And  on  account  of  his  cunning  he 
will]  and  prospered."  will  make  deceit  to  prosper  in  his  hand, 

and  in  his  heart  will  he  wax  great,  and  in 
a  time  of  quiet  he  will  destroy  many,  and 
against  the  Prince  of  princes  will  he  stand 
up  ;  but  —  he  shall  be  broken  without  a 
[human]  hand." 

Such  is  the  additional  description  of  the  fourth  dynasty,  in  chap.  viii. 
Several  particulars  here  added,  deserve  a  special  notice.  In  8:  8 — 12,  we 
have,  (l)  The  scattered  condition  of  the  fourth  dynasty  ;  "  toward  the  four 
winds  of  heaven  is  it  separated."  (2)  The  little  horn  that  rises  up  after 
wards,  becomes  very  great  in  the  south  (Egypt),  in  the  east  (on  and  be 
yond  the  Euphrates),  and  in  the  goodly  land  (of  Palestine).  (3)  It  mag 
nified  itself  in  an  impious  manner,  invaded  the  temple-services,  and  the 
priests  ministering  there,  and  some  of  this  host  of  God  it  cast  down,  even 
the  stars  (comp.  Rev.  1:  20.  2:  28),  and  trode  upon  them.  It  assailed  the 
Prince  of  the  host  himself,  and  took  away  the  daily  offering  made  to  him, 
and  profaned  his  sanctuary.  (4)  It  offered  up  impious  sacrifices  in  the 
room  of  the  lawful  ones,  and  set  over  them  a  heathen  priesthood.  (5)  It 
opposed  and  rendered  inefficient  the  truth  of  God's  word,  and  for  sometime 
had  undisputed  control  and  prospered.  Some  of  these  particulars  are  in 
deed  adverted  to  in  chap.  7:  23 — 25  ;  but  they  are  more  expanded  here, 
and  new  ones  are  added.  These  are  all  graphically  characteristic  of  Anti- 
ochus. 

In  8:  20 — 25,  (the  words  of  the  angel-interpreter),  the  time  in  which 
Antiochus  shall  make  his  appearance  is  designated,  viz.  the  latter  part  of 
the  dominion  of  the  horns,  that  sprang  up  after  the  great  horn  (Alexander) 
was  broken,  v.  23.  The  cunning  and  sagacity  of  Antiochus,  in  perpetrat 
ing  the  work  of  destruction,  are  more  fully  developed  than  before,  and 
specially  his  massacre  of  the  quiet  and  unoffending.  Finally,  the  divine 
judgment  which  destroys  him  is  rendered  more  conspicuous  and  prominent. 
At  the  close,  Daniel  is  told  to  seal  up  his  account  of  the  vision,  because  it 
has  respect  to  a  future  that  comes  not  until  after  many  days,  v.  26.  The 
time  of  this  vision  was  the  third  year  of  Belshazzar,  v.  1  ;  and  thus  it  was 
near  to  the  period,  when  the  Persian  dominion  (that  of  the  ram)  would 
commence. 

In  the  third  year  of  Cyrus,  the  fourth  and  last  vision  respecting  the  em 
pires  was  disclosed,  10:  1.  The  first  part  of  it  takes  a  brief  and  rapid  sur 
vey  of  the  two  empires  which  precede  the  fourth,  viz.  the  Persian  and 
Alexandro-Grecian.  It  runs  thus : 

XI.  2,  "  Behold  three  kings  of  Persia  are  yet  to  stand  up ;  and  the  fourth  shall 
obtain  riches  greater  than  all,  and  when  he  waxes  strong  by  his  riches,  he  will  rouse 
up  all  the  dominion  of  Greece.  (3)  And  a  mighty  king  shall  stand  up,  and  he  shall 
rule  with  wide  dominion,  and  do  according  to  his  pleasure.  (4)  And  when  he  stand- 
eth  up,  his  kingdom  shall  be  broken,  and  it  shall  be  divided  to  the  four  winds  of  hea 
ven,  but  not  to  his  posterity  nor  according  to  the  dominion  with  which  he  ruled,  but 
his  kingdom  shall  be  plucked  up,  and  given  to  others  besides  these. 

16* 


186  INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 

Here  is  a  special  limitation,  in  regard  to  Persia,  of  a  time  when  it  shall 
make  war  with  Greece,  viz.  in  the  time  of  the  fourth  king  after  Cyrus. 
From  this  the  prophet  passes,  (without  stopping  to  describe  the  issue  of  the 
Persian  invasion,  except  that  it  will  rouse  up  all  Greece),  to  the  third  do 
minion  under  Alexander,  which  in  fact  took  its  rise  from  the  union  of 
Greece  under  him,  in  order  to  avenge  the  Persian  aggression.  He  makes 
no  special  note  of  time,  i.  e.  as  to  the  distance  of  it  from  the  fourth  king  of 
Persia,  but  indicates  it  merely  by  the  sequency  of  the  events  under  the 
"  mighty  king."  Finally,  the  ruin  of  this  king's  dominion ;  its  being  scat 
tered  to  the  four  winds  ;  the  rejection  of  his  posterity  from  all  regal  claims ; 
the  absolute  plucking  up  of  Alexander's  government,  and  the  giving  of  it 
to  other  persons  than  his  children  ;  and  the  comparative  inferiority  of  the 
subsequent  dynasty ;  are  all  set  forth  in  terms  as  strong  as  language  can 
well  employ. 

Thus  far  respecting  the  second  and  third  dynasty  in  chap.  xi.  The  rest 
of  a  long  chapter  is  occupied  entirely  with  a  historic  sketch,  as  it  were,  of 
those  chiefs  of  the  fourth  dynasty,  who  came  in  particular  contact  with 
Palestine,  for  good  or  for  evil,  but  mostly  it  notices  such  events  as  charac 
terize  the  reign  of  particular  princes,  who  most  concerned  themselves  with 
the  country  of  the  Hebrews  for  selfish  or  sinister  purposes.  The  historic 
sketch  begins  with  Ptolemy  Lagus,  "  the  king  of  the  south,"  v.  5.  It  pro 
ceeds  with  sketching  a  succession  of  events  under  the  kings  of  the  south 
and  the  north  (Egypt  and  Syria).  In  vs.  13 — 19  Antiochus  the  Great  of 
Syria  is  introduced ;  in  v.  20,  Seleucus  Philopater  his  son  ;  in  vs.  21 — 45, 
the  history  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  is  sketched  at  a  length,  which,  as  has 
already  been  said,  has  no  parallel  in  the  prophetic  compositions  of  the 
Scriptures.  Indeed  this  history  is  so  minute  and  circumstantial,  that, 
as  has  been  noticed,  ancient  and  modern  doubters  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  book  have  accused  it  strongly  of  being  written  post  eventum.  This  mat 
ter  seems  to  have  suggested  a  hint  to  many  recent  interpreters,  which  they 
have  expanded  into  numerous  objections  against  the  older  date  commonly 
asssigned  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  and  arguments  for  its  being  composed  in  the 
later  time  of  the  Maccabees,  or  at  least  near  the  period  of  Antiochus'  death. 
I  shall  not  extract  the  whole  of  this  ample  account  of  Antiochus,  as  it  is 
unnecessary  for  my  present  purpose.  I  shall  merely  bring  into  comparison 
those  parts  of  it  which  serve  to  identify  the  individual  here  described, 
about  whom  no  one  can  doubt,  with  the  one  who  is  made  the  object  of  spe 
cial  reference  and  notice,  in  chapters  vii.  and  viii. 

We  have  already  seen  (p.  182  above),  that  in  chap.  ii.  there  is  merely  a 
generic  description  of  the  fourth  dynasty.  But  into  this,  as  has  already 
been  remarked,  a  singular  circumstance  is  introduced,  viz.  J*  they  shall  in 
termingle  with  the  seed  of  men,  but  they  shall  not  cleave  one  to  another, 
even  as  iron  mixes  not  with  clay."  In  chap.  xi.  we  are  explicitly  taught 
what  the  meaning  of  this  is.  In  v.  6,  the  marriage  of  Antiochus  Theos 
with  Berenice,  the  daughter  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  king  of  Egypt,  is  de 
scribed  ;  a  marriage  of  mere  policy  and  kingly  chicanery,  which,  as  there 
declared,  turned  out  badly  for  those  concerned  in  the  matter.  So  in  v.  17, 
we  have  an  account  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  and  of  his  giving  his  daughter 
Cleopatra,  to  Ptolemy  Epiphanes  the  young  king  of  Egypt ;  which  was 
done  entirely  for  crafty  purposes,  in  order  that  Antiochus,  who  was  annoyed 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  "VTL  187 

by  the  Romans,  might  break  up  the  alliance  between  Rome  and  Egypt,  by 
winning  the  king  of  the  latter  country  to  his  side.  These  circumstances  not 
only  confirm  the  passage  in  2:  43,  but  identify  the  dynasty  in  11:  5 — 45,  as 
being  the  same  with  that  described  in  2:  40 — 43. 

In  11:  21  comes  in  the  iitas ,  (nothing  could  more  graphically  characterize 
him  than  this  appellative),  not  as  having  any  right  to  the  kingdom  of  Syria, 
but  as  obtaining  it  by  his  wily  flatteries  ;  and  in  the  like  manner  is  he  pre 
sented  to  us,  in  8:  23,  25.  In  11:  22,  not  only  many  others,  but  even  the 
prince  of  the  covenant  (the  high  priest)  is  destroyed.  With  this  must  be 
compared  7:  7,  specially  7:  25 ;  then  8: 10,  11,  24,  25.  In  11:  30 — 33,  is  an 
account  of  Antiochus  as  polluting  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem,  and  taking 
away  the  daily  sacrifices  ;  and  this  is  to  be  compared  with  7:  8,  25,  and  8:  11, 
12,  24,  25.  In  11:  36,  the  impious  and  blasphemous  conduct  of  Antiochus 
is  described,  and  also  the  successful  prosecution  of  his  profane  designs  for  a 
time  ;  and  this  is  to  be  compared  with  7:  8,  11,  25,  and  8:  11,  12,  24,  25. 
In  11:  45,  the  fearful  doom  of  Antiochus  is  presented  to  our  view ;  and  with 
this  must  be  compared  7:  11,  26.  8:  25.  I  am  not  able  to  see  how  a  shadow 
of  doubt  can  remain,  as  to  the  identity  of  the  same  personage  in  these  pas 
sages.  That  personage,  moreover,  is  clearly  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

I  have  refrained  hitherto  from  introducing  Dan.  9:  25 — 27,  into  the  com 
parison  of  similar  passages  respecting  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  because  that 
portion  of  Scripture  is  very  brief  and  compressed,  and  withal  a  very  difficult 
one,  as  the  almost  endless  variety  of  criticisms  upon  it  shows.  But  since  my 
own  mind  is  now  fully  satisfied  respecting  the  general  meaning  of  the  pas 
sage,  I  deem  it  expedient  here  to  introduce  it,  and  I  ask  the  reader  to  com 
pare  it  carefully  with  the  passages  referred  to  in  the  preceding  paragraph. 
A  literal  translation  runs  thus : 

Dan.  ix.  25,  "  Mark  well  and  understand  ;  from  the  going  forth  of  a  command  to 
rebuild  Jerusalem,  unto  an  Anointed  one,  a  Prince,  shall  be  7  weeks ;  and  62  weeks 
shall  it  be  rebuilt,  with  broad  spaces  and  narrow  limits,  and  in  troublous  times. 
(V.  26)  And  after  62  weeks,  an  Anointed  One  shall  be  cut  off,  and  there  shall  be 
none  for  it  [the  people],  and  the  city  and  sanctuary  shall  the  people  of  a  prince  that 
will  come  destroy  ;  but  his  end  shall  be  with  an  overwhelming  flood,  and  unto  the 
end  shall  be  war,  a  decreed  measure  of  desolations.  (V.  27)  And  he  shall  firmly 
covenant  with  many  for  one  week ;  and  during  half  of  the  week  shall  he  cause  the 
sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease  ;  and  a  waster  shall  be  over  a  winged-fowl  of  abomi 
nations  ;  but  unto  destruction,  even  that  which  is  decreed,  shall  there  be  an  outpour 
ing  upon  him  who  is  to  be  destroyed." 

Here  now  are  all  the  leading  particulars  of  Antiochus'  doings.  Here  is 
his  assault  on  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  ;  his  profanation  of  the  sanctuary  ; 
his  causing  the  oblation  and  sacrifices  to  cease  for  three  and  a  half  years  ; 
and  finally  his  fearful  end  near  the  close  of  this  period.  Compare  now 
this  passage  with  ch.  7:  8,  20,  25,  26.  8:  9 — 12,  23 — 25.  11:  21,  30 — 32,  36, 
41 — 45.  12:  7.  Nothing  seems  to  be  more  plain,  than  that  the  same  per 
sonage  is  described  in  all.  Specially  does  the  particular  notation  of  the 
three  and  a  half  years  during  which  Antiochus  will  cause  the  temple-service 
to  cease,  and  of  the  speedy  and  terrible  death  of  the  tyrant  that  will  ensue, 
definitively  mark  sameness  of  personage  and  description  in  all  the  passages 
to  which  I  have  just  referred.  If  the  reader  will  carefully  note  these  facts, 
it  will  aid  him  much  in  deciding  the  question,  whether  the  Roman  power  is 


188  INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 

at  all  concerned  with  any  of  these  prophecies,  excepting  the  mere  casual 
allusion  to  it  in  11:  30,  which  speaks  of  "the  ships  of  Chittim"  as  coming 
to  Egypt,  and  arresting  the  progress  of  Antiochus  in  that  country ;  and 
also  the  implied  interference  of  the  Romans  with  Antiochus  Magnus,  as  stated 
in  11:  28.  But  of  this,  more  in  the  sequel. 

Having  given  such  a  detailed  and  comparative  view  of  the  different  pro- 
*       phecies  of  Daniel  respecting  the  fourth  dynasty,  it  remains  only  to  make  a 
few  remarks  of  a  more  general  bearing,  which  may  help  us  to  make  out  a 
satisfactory  general  conclusion. 

(1)  It  is  evident  from  even  a  cursory  reading  of  these  predictions,  that 
the  dynasties  follow  each  other  in  succession,  and  occupy  in  the  main  the 
same  countries.     One  grows  up  when  another  becomes  extinguished,  or 
(in  other  words)  by  destroying  the  former.     Thus   the  Medo-Persian  suc 
ceeds  the  Babylonian ;  and  Alexander's  dominion  overthrows  the  Medo- 
Persian,  and  stands  up  in  its  place.     And  in  like  manner,  it  is  by  the  de 
struction  of  Alexander's  dominion,  that  the  fourth  dynasty  comes  into  being. 
In  the  last  case,  the  separation  between  Alexander's  dynasty  and  that  which 
follows,  is  as  strongly  marked  as  the  separation  of  any  of  the  three  former 
from  each  other ;  see  7:  7,  23.  8:  8,  22,  and  particularly  11:  4,  which  seems 
fairly  to  admit  of  no  other  explanation, 

(2)  To  interpret  the  fourth  beast  (7:  7,  23),  and  the  legs  and  feet  of  the 
colossal  image  (2:  40  seq.),  as  symbolic  of  the  Roman  empire,  seems  to  be 
an  exegetical  impossibility.     That  the  fourth  beast  was  diverse  from  the 
three  others,  is  explicitly  said  in  7:  7,  23.     The  fact  that  the  fourth  beast 
was  a  monster  without  a  name,  i.  e.  had  no  parallel  in  the  animal  world,  in 
dicates  the  mixed  and  incongruous  condition  of  the  fourth  dynasty.     The 
symbol  of  it  in  2:  40  seq.  in  the  mixture  of  the  iron  and  the  clay,  is  an  indica 
tion  of  the  same  nature.     Then  it  is  explicitly  declared  in  8:  8,  that  the  four 
notable  horns,  which  came  up  in  the  room  of  the  great  horn  (Alexander), 
symbolize  the  four  kingdoms  "  towards  the  four  winds  of  heaven,"   which 
kingdoms  sprang  up  as  a  succession  of  the  third  dynasty.     In  8:  22  it  is  ex 
plicitly  stated,  that  these  four  horns  denote  four  kingdoms,  which  stand  up 
out  of  the  nation  or  people  who  governed  the  preceding  dynasty,  i.  e.  from 
the  Grecian  nation.     These  four  horns,  denoting  the  partition  of  the  fourth 
dynasty,  are  quite  different  in  their  signification  from  the  ten  horns  in  7:  7, 
20,  24.     In  the  latter  case,  a  succession  of  kings  is  denoted  in  that  branch 
of  the  fourth  dynasty,  which  "  devours  the  whole  land  [of  Judea]],  and 
treads  down,  and  breaks  in  pieces."      In  what  sense,  now,  can  the  Roman 
dominion  be  said  to  succeed  that  of  Alexander  ?    Manyjyears  after  his  death, 
Rome  was  neither  known  nor  feared  in  the  East ;    and  certainly  it  had  no 
concern  with  breaking  in  pieces  the  Hebrew  people.     And  if  the  difficulty 
in  respect  to  immediate  succession  could  be  disposed  of,  in  what  sense  can  it 
be  said,  that  the  Roman  dominion  sprung  from  the  nation  that  ruled  the 

/     third  dynasty,  8:  22  ? 

But  besides  this,  the  Roman  empire,  until  some  time  after  the  fifth  king 
dom  was  introduced,  never  covered  even  any  portion  of  the  ground  in 
cluded  in  the  domain  of  the  three  preceding  dynasties.  It  lies  on  the  face 
of  the  whole  representation,  that  the  successive  monarchies  occupy  in  the 
main  the  same  countries,  as  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  state.  But  if 
the  Roman  empire  be  the  fourth,  this  point  must  be  given  up ;  for  Home. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII.  189 

at  the  height  of  her  growth,  never  stretched  beyond  the  Euphrates,  so  as  to 
have  anything  more  than  a  merely  temporary  and  military  occupation  of 
some  provinces  ;  and  from  these  they  were  soon  driven  by  the  Parthians. 
Much  less  was  Rome  concerned  with  crushing  the  Jews,  at  the  early  period    ./ 
in  question. 

The  immediate  succession  of  the  fourth  empire  which  arose  out  of  the  ruins 
of  Alexander's ;  the  four  great  divisions  of  the  fourth  dynasty ;  the  ten 
kings  that  sprang  up  in  one  of  the  four  divisions  ;  and  the  different  countries 
occupied  by  the  Romans  ;  are  unequivocal  and  unanswerable  arguments 
against  applying  the  fourth  dynasty  to  Roiw. 

But  there  is  another  proof,  if  possible  still  more  decisive.  This  is,  that  all 
the  prophecies  of  Daniel  agree  in  asserting,  that  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  the 
i"tt33,  sprang  from  the  bosom  of  the  fourth  dynasty.  Thus  in  7:  7,  8,  from 
among  the  ten  horns  of  the  fourth  dynasty  springs  up  the  little  horn,  which 
plucks  up  three  of  the  others.  This  is  reasserted  in  7:  24.  Again,  in  8:  8,  9, 
out  of  one  of  the  four  horns  of  the  fourth  dynasty,  springs  up  the  little  horn, 
which  waxes  great,  and  assails  the  temple  and  people  of  God.  In  11:  21, 
Antiochus  is  represented  as  the  successor  of  Seleucus  Philopator,  and  of 
course  as  belonging  to  the  Syrian  part  of  the  fourth  dynasty.  These  facts 
seem  too  plain  to  admit  of  any  doubt.  But  if  Antiochus  springs  from  a  por 
tion  of  the  fourth  dynasty,  (which  is  plain),  then  how  could  the  fourth  dy-  / 
nasty  be  Roman  ?  Antiochus  was  no  Roman. 

(3)  Although  the  things  already  stated  seem  to  decide  the  question 
against  Rome,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  yet  there  is  another  circum 
stance,  which  is,  if  possible,  still  more  decisive.  This  is,  that  the  commence 
ment  of  the  fifth  or  Messianic  kingdom  takes  place  only  when  those  four 
dynasties  are  broken  up  and  subverted.  This  is  explicit  in  2:  44,  45  ;  in  7: 
11 — 14,  26,  27  ;  and  it  seems  to  be  implied  in  12:  1 — 3.  "  All  those  king 
doms"  (2:  44)  are  to  be  consumed,  and  broken  in  pieces,"  when  the  new 
kingdom  shall  arise.  "  Their  dominion  is  taken  away"  (7:  11,  12),  before  the 
Son  of  Man  enters  upon  his  dominion,  (7:  13,  14)  ;  and  the  same  is  said  in 
vs.  26,  27.  This  is  a  circumstance  too  decisive  to  admit  of  any  appeal.  Un 
less  then  the  Roman  dynasty  was  destroyed  before  the  coming  of  Christ, 
the  fourth  dynasty  was  not  Roman. 

I  can  see  no  good  reason  here,  to  appeal  to  Antichrist,  and  to  the  Pope, 
as  being  symbolized  by  the  fourth  beast.  All  the  other  beasts  are  symbols 
of  civil  powers,  of  actual  monarchical  governments.  It  is  out  of  question, 
then,  for  us,  with  propriety  to  regard  the  fourth  beast  as  a  representative  or 
symbol  of  a  mere  religious  apostasy  from  Christianity,  and  then  make,  as  we 
must,  Antiochus  to  spring  out  of  that.  The  diversity  of  the  fourth  beast, 
(spoken  of  in  7:  7,  19,  24),  is  not  of  such  a  nature,  but  it  consists  in  its  pe 
culiar  character,  in  its  destructive  influence  upon  the  Jewish  nation,  in  its 
unusual  cruelties,  and  in  its  blasphemies.  And  since  the  little  horn  which 
waxed  great,  the  blasphemer,  the  profaner  of  the  temple  and  the  altar,  the 
persecutor  of  the  holy  people,  must  be  destroyed  before  the  Son  of  Man 
commences  his  reign,  it  would  seem  to  be  clear,  that  neither  Antichrist  nor 
the  Pope  is  represented  by  the  little  horn.  At  all  events,  neither  of  those 
last  named  springs  from  the  succession  of  the  ten  Syrian  kings  ;  and  yet 
Antiochus  must  and  did  proceed  from  them. 

Let  me  not  be  understood  as  denying  that  the  N.  Test,  writers  have,  in  a 


190  INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 

variety  of  cases,  applied  the  language  of  Daniel  (for  substance)  to  the  de 
scription  of  persons,  or  things,  or  events,  which  belong  to  the  Christian  era. 
When  our  Saviour  (Matt.  24:  15.  Mark  13:  14)  describes  the  invading  Ro 
man  power,  by  the  use  of  language  borrowed  from  Daniel's  description  of  the 
desolations  occasioned  by  the  abomination  of  desolation,  (probably  Dan.  9:  26, 
27,  possibly  11:  81.  12:11),  it  is  plain  that  he  compares  the  consequences  of  the 
Roman  invasion,  with  those  which  followed  the  invasion  of  Judea  by  Antiochus. 
I  can  hardly  refrain  from  expressing  my  surprise,  however,  to  find  that 
Hengstenberg  and  Havernick,  who  make  the  Roman  power  to  be  the  fourth 
dynasty,  should  appeal  with  such  entire  confidence  to  Matt.  21:  15.  Mark  13: 
14  (essentially  one  and  the  same),  as  proof  that  the  destructive  Roman 
power  was  plainly  predicted  by  Daniel.  They  argue  the  point  with  great 
earnestness ;  but  so  far  as  I  can  see,  upon  very  insufficient  and  unsatisfac 
tory  grounds.  Hengstenberg  himself  confesses  (Authent.  265),  that  "  ex 
cepting  Dan.  9:  25 — 27,  no  other  part  of  the  book  does  even  apparently 
relate  to  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  State  by  the  Romans."  But  to  for 
tify  his  position,  that  Dan.  9:  25 — 27  applies  to  the  Romans,  he  appeals  to 
Josephus,  who  (Antiq.  X.  11.  7)  says:  "Daniel  also  wrote  respecting  the 
government  of  the  Romans,  and  that  desolations  should  be  made  by  them." 
Josephus  does  indeed  say  this ;  but  he  says  it  after  fully  detailing  the  pro 
phecies  of  Daniel  in  ch.  viii,  specially  that  concerning  "  the  little  horn," 
which  he  alleges  was  fulfilled  in  Antiochus.  Now  that  he  believed  Daniel 
to  have  predicted,  in  his  book,  the  invasion  of  Judea  by  the  Romans,  is 
quite  a  possible  thing ;  perhaps  a  probable  one ;  but  to  my  own  mind,  his 
single  short  sentence  respecting  the  Romans  wears  the  aspect  of  some 
thing  complimentary  to  them,  and  apologetic  for  them.  "  What  they  had 
done  was  a  notable  thing  ;  and  as  they  had  only  fulfilled  what  had 
long  before  been  predicted,  they  could  not  therefore  be  blamed."  Be 
this  however  as  it  may,  it  depends  merely  on  the  exegesis  of  Jose 
phus.  Nor  do  we  know  that  the  Jews  in  general  were  of  the  same 
opinion.  But  whether  they  were  or  not,  does  not  settle  the  question  be 
fore  us.  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  and  some  others,  insist  that  the  Sa 
viour's  words  in  Matt.  24:  15,  viz.  "  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet,"  (in 
Mark  13:  14  this  clause  is  now  rejected  by  recent  criticism,  and  marked  as 
probably  spurious  by  Hahn),  necessarily  imply  an  express  and  direct  pre 
diction,  on  the  part  of  Daniel,  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Ro 
mans.  I  cannot  feel  the  force  of  this  appeal  ;  at  least  I  am  by  no  means 
persuaded  that  it  is  convincing.  Many  are  the  appeals  in  the  N.  Test,  to 
passages  ini  the  Old,  with  an  inKr}Qw&i]  attached  to  them  (which  makes 
them  look  like  appeal  to  prophecy},  that  are  not  by  any  means  to  be  placed 
on  the  list  of  direct  and  proper  predictions.  For  example  ;  the  flight  of  Jo 
seph  with  Mary  and  the  infant  Jesus  to  Egypt,  and  their  return  from  that 
country,  is  said  (Matt.  2:  J5)  to  have  taken  place,  that  "  what  was  spoken 
of  the  Lord  by  the  mouth  of  his  prophet  might  be  fulfilled."  What  then  did 
the  prophet  say,  which  is  fulfilled  ?  He  merely  made  a  declaration  —  a 
simple  categorical  declaration  —  of  a  historical/acf,  as  follows  :  "When  Is 
rael  was  a  child  I  loved  him,  and  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt,"  Hos.  11:  1. 
Here  is  no  prediction,  but  merely  a  simple  averment  of  certain  facts  in  for 
mer  times.  What  is  the  fulfilment  then  ?  It  is,  that  what  happened  in  an 
cient  times,  in  respect  to  a  nation  who  were  reckoned  as  the  children  of 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII.  191 

God,  had  now  been  repeated  in  a  higher  and  more  significant  sense.  The 
Son  of  God,  in  the  most  eminent  sense,  was  called  from  exile  in  Egypt 
back  to  the  promised  land.  This  is  a  n^Qtaaig  par  excellence.  The  like  to 
this  occurs  again,  after  a  single  intervening  verse.  The  Evangelist  (Matt.  2: 
16)  relates  the  slaughter  of  the  infants  by  Herod  at  Bethlehem.  He  then 
subjoins  a  remark,  viz.  "  Then  was  fulfilled  what  was  spoken  by  the  prophet 
Jeremiah,  saying :  In  llama  a  voice  was  heard,  lamentation  and  weeping 
and  great  sorrow  ;  Rachel  weeping  for  her  children,  and  refusing  to  be 
comforted,  because  they  are  not."  This  is  quoted  from  Jer.  31:  15,  where 
the  prophet  employs  the  expression  as  descriptive  of  the  mourning  of  Rachel 
over  her  children  (Benjamites)  slain,  and  going  from  Rama  into  exile.  It 
is  simply  a  poetic  description  of  a  mournful  fact,  sketched  out  indeed  with 
vivid  coloring.  What  now  happened  at  Bethlehem  (Rachel's  burying-place) 
to  fulfil  this  ?  The  slaughter  of  the  infants,  Rachel's  later  progeny.  What 
took  place  of  old,  then,  is  here  substantially  renewed  by  repetition.  But 
there  is  no  trace  of  &  prediction  proper,  in  Jer.  81:  15. 

It  were  easy  to  go  on  in  this  way,  and  to  show  that  at  least  one  half  of  such 
nkrjQKxjsig  in  the  N.  Test,  are  of  the  same  character.  An  appeal  then  to  Matt. 
24:  15  and  Mark  13:  14,  in  order  to  show  that  the  passage  of  Daniel  refer 
red  to  is  proper  prediction,  is  very  far  from  being  satisfactory.  Christ  does 
not  even  say  that  there  is  &  fulfilment  of  Daniel's  words.  His  declaration  is : 
"  When  ye  shall  see  the  abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the 
prophet,  standing  in  the  holy  place,  (in  Mark  —  standing  where  it  ought  not), 
then  let  those  flee,  etc."  But  there  is  another  remarkable  circumstance. 
After  the  clause  standing  in  the  holy  place,  the  Saviour  adds,  in  a  parenthetic 
clause,  (o  avayivuffxwv  votlnai)  ;  which  parenthetic  addition,  moreover,  both 
evangelists  exhibit  Now  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  unexpected  suggestion 
or  innuendo  ?  It  amounts  simply  to  this  :  '  Let  the  reader  of  Daniel  well 
consider  the  essential  meaning  of  the  prophet.'  But  in  case  of  a  plain  and 
direct  prediction  of  Daniel,  such  a  caution  would  hardly  have  been  added. 
At  all  events  it  is  very  unusual  in  such  cases.  To  what  then  does  the  caution 
amount  ?  To  this,  viz.  '  Consider  well,  that  when  a  foreign,  heathen,  and 
hostile  army  has  surrounded  the  holy  ground,  the  sacred  city,  it  is  time  to  flee, 
for  destruction  is  near.  Daniel  has  described  such  an  occurrence  ;  there 
fore  take  warning  by  it.'  Luke  has  given  us,  indeed,  the  exact  gist  of  the 
passage,  in  his  account  of  the  same  matter  in  21:  20.  His  words  are  these  : 
"  When  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  surrounded  by  armies,  then  flee,  etc."  Here 
we  have  the  nlJfownf  of  the  passage  in  Daniel,  viz.  the  presence  of  a  hostile 
heathen  power  (a  desolating  abomination)  on  holy  ground.  The  Saviour 
would  say  :  '  When  this  takes  place,  consider  that  what  Daniel  has  described 
as  happening  in  ancient  times  is  about  to  happen  now.  Take  warning 
and  deliver  yourselves.'  Thus  much,  but  plainly  nothing  more  when  all 
the  passages  are  compared,  can  be  made  out  from  the  texts  to  which  appeal 
is  made,  as  containing  predictions  of  the  Roman  invasion. 

That  I  am  well  grounded  in  this  position,  appears  from  a  cursory  glance  at 
Dan.  9:  25 — 27.  There,  a  prince  and  his  people  are  spoken  of,  who  shall  come 
and  lay  waste  the  sanctuary ;  this  they  will  do  for  one  week  =  seven  years 
(the  Roman  war  lasted  but  little  more  than  three)  ;  then  in  the  midst  of 
that  week,  the  destroyer  will  cause  the  daily  sacrifice  and  the  oblation  to 
cease,  i.  e.  during  the  latter  half  of  the  seven  years  this  will  be  done  ;  and 


192  INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII. 

soon  after,  the  destroyer  shall  himself  be  destroyed  with  consummate  de 
creed  destruction.  Now  in  what  part  of  the  Roman  invasion  did  all  this 
happen  ?  When  did  they  suspend  the  temple  services  ?  And  where  shall 
we  find  the  three  and  a  half  years  of  suspension  ?  And  above  all,  where, 
after  the  suspension,  are  we  to  find  the  restoration  of  the  temple-services  ? 
for  this  is  implied  in  Daniel.  The  Roman  suspension  remains  from  that  day 
to  this.  Last,  but  not  least,  the  desolator  in  this  case  is  given  over  to  a 
decreed  destruction,  to  take  place  soon  after  the  three  and  a  half  years 
were  ended.  Was  this  true,  now,  of  either  Vespasian  or  Titus  ?  Not  at  all. 
Both  died  a  natural  death,  and  in  peaceful  circumstances,  Vespasian  A.  D.  79 
and  Titus  in  82.  Both  were  greatly  beloved  and  honored  as  princes.  What 
resemblance  did  either  of  them  bear  to  the  abhorred  tyrant  in  Dan.  9:  26,  27  ? 

The  answer  then  to  that  exegesis  which  makes  the  Roman  power  to  be  the 
fourth  dynasty  in  Daniel,  is,  that  history  contradicts  such  an  application  of 
his  predictions.  That  fourth  power  is  of  Greek  origin  ;  its  sphere  of  action 
is  oriental  ground  ;  its  acts  are  consummated  in  Epiphanes,  (so  far  as  pro 
phecy  has  any  concern  with  it)  ;  and  the  leading  tyrant  of  that  dynasty  is 
the  enemy  and  blasphemer  of  God,  and  is  cut  down  in  the  midst  of  his 
career  by  divine  vengeance,  shortly  after  the  temple  desolations  were  com 
pleted.  Which  of  all  these  things  now  is  applicable  either  to  Vespasian  or  to 
Titus  ?  And  above  all,  what  are  we  to  do  with  the  suspension  of  temple- 
services  for  three  and  a  half  years,  and  for  this  period  only  ? 

But  enough.  It  is  impossible  to  carry  through  the  views  of  Hengstenberg 
and  Havernick,  in  relation  to  Dan.  9:  25 — 27,  and  make  them  comport  either 
with  history  or  with  the  design  of  the  prophet.  Events  that  precede  the 
Messianic  kingdom  are  the  objects  of  Daniel's  vision.  Through  and  through 
he  tells  us,  that  the  new  and  perpetual  kingdom,  i.  e.  the  fifth  dynasty,  is  built 
upon  the  complete  destruction  of  the  other  four  dynasties.  Was  the  Roman 
power  destroyed  then,  when  the  Messiah's  kingdom  began  ?  This  simple 
question  brings  the  whole  matter  to  a  conclusion. 

I  see  no  way  of  making  out  a  prophecy  of  Roman  invasion  in  Daniel,  un 
less  we  force  a  double  sense  upon  the  passage  in  question ;  a  thing  which 
neither  Hengstenberg  nor  Havernick  admitted  to  be  done,  when  their 
books  were  written.  And  indeed  it  cannot  be  done  without  great  violence. 
A  double  sense  I  must  deem  inadmissible,  moreover,  for  reasons  already 
often  given  to  the  public.  To  what  the  German  critics  call  an  apotelesmatic 
accomplishment  of  predictions  in  the  O.Test.,  I  should  not  strenuously  object, 
provided  it  be  kept  within  due  limits.  The  epithet  means  a  final  or  con 
cluding,  or  complete  accomplishment,  in  distinction  from  a  prior  literal  or 
obvious  accomplishment.  If  the  matter  be  plainly  stated,  as  it  lies  in  my 
own  mind,  it  might  stand  thus  :  '  A  prophecy  may  contain  a  generic  prin 
ciple  of  God's  government,  or  of  development  in  regard  to  occurrences ; 
and  then  there  may  be  a  primary  and  obvious  accomplishment  of  the  pre 
diction,  and  afterwards  a  development  of  the  same  generic  principle  in  other 
events.  To  such  an  apotelesmatic  accomplishment  I  should  make  no  ob 
jection  ;  I  would  even  freely  admit  it. 

Q  The  matter  as  to  Dan.  9:  25—27  and  Matt.  24:  15,  would  then  stand  thus  : 
'  For  the  sins  of  the  ancient  Jews,  Daniel  foretold  chastisement  by  a  foreign 
heathen  enemy,  which  happened  ;  for  the  sins  of  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's 
time,  Jerusalem  must  be  again  surrounded  by  hostile  heathen  armies.  The 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VII.  193 

like  to  what  Daniel  foretells  and  what  took  place,  was  again  presented  in  the 
time  of  Christ's  ministry,  and  was  going  on  to  completion/  To  such  an  apo- 
telesmatic  view,  I  see  no  reasonable  objection.  Daniel  predicts  peculiar 
punishment  for  special  sins  ;  when  those  special  sins  again  occur,  the  pun 
ishment  may  be  again  expected. 

When  Paul  describes  the  Man  of  Sin  (l  Thess.  2:  3,  4),  we  cannot  well 
doubt  that  he  had  in  his  mind  that  son  of  perdition  in  former  days,  who  is  de 
scribed  in  Dan.  7:  25  and  11:  36.  In  other  words,  the  like  of  what  hap 
pened  in  Antiochus'  time,  is  again  to  happen  under  the  new  dispensation. 
Of  the  same  tenor  with  these  and  other  like  cases,  are  such  passages  as  we 
have  produced  above,  viz.  Matt.  2:  15,  compared  with  Hos.  11:  1  ;  Matt.  2: 
17,  18,  compared  with  Jer.  31:15.  It  requires,  indeed,  a  good  degree  of  fa 
miliarity  with  the  usage  of  the  N.  Test,  writers,  in  regard  to  passages  of  the 
O.  Test,  which  they  quote  or  refer  to,  in  order  to  be  well  satisfied  respect 
ing  the  wide  extent  in  which  they  make  the  application  of  such  passages  to 
the  Christian  era.  But  I  feel  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that,  in  my  apprehen 
sion,  no  passage  in  the  N.  Test,  can  be  pointed  out,  which  makes  it  neces 
sary  to  regard  any  portion  of  the  predictions  in  Daniel  that  respect  only  the 
four  great  dynasties,  as  a  direct  prediction  of  events  or  persons  under  the 
fifth  monarchy.  Thejifth  monarchy  has  an  abundance  of  prediction  which 
respects  only  that  monarchy.  The  reason  for  this  opinion  is  obvious,  and  it 
seems  to  me  to  be  conclusive.  All  which  pertains  to  the  four  monarchies 
has  passed  away,  when  the  fifth  monarchy  commences.  I  say  commences,  for 
the  interpretation  which  makes  the  fifth  monarchy  begin  only  with  the  Mil 
lennium,  or  the  end  of  the  world,  is  evidently  at  variance  with  all  the  decla 
rations  of  the  Saviour,  that  his  kingdom  was  at  hand,  and  that  it  had  indeed 
already  begun.  For  this  kingdom  fully  to  come,  if  interpreted  in  the  most 
ample  sense  that  the  phrase  admits,  would  place  the  whole  matter  in  quite 
another  attitude  than  that  which  here  belongs  to  it. 

Finally,  I  do  not  see  any  possible  way  of  harmonizing  the  development 
of  the  Roman  empire,  with  the  description  of  the  fourth  dynasty  in  2:  41,  42. 
Clearly  the  iron  and  the  clay,  as  symbols,  both  belong  to  the  same  dynasty. 
The  prophet  says  :  "  The  kingdom  shall  be  divided"  and  that "  it  shall  be  part 
ly  strong  and  partly  broken."  Of  all  the  great  empires  that  are  within  our 
cognizance,  we  know  of  none  to  which  this  is  so  little  applicable  as  to  the 
Roman.  Parties  under  this  dominion,  I  readily  concede,  were  formed  from 
time  to  time,  arid  civil  broils  and  wars  ensued  for  a  while.  But  they  were 
of  short  continuance.  Rome  had  a  firm,  steady,  compact,  powerful,  solid 
growth,  amid  all  the  partial  troubles  that  she  experienced  within  herself. 
Civil  and  party  hostility  subsided,  when  foreign  enemies  called  on  the  Ro 
mans  to  show  their  love  of  country  and  their  pride  of  conquest.  "  Partly 
strong  and  partly  broken  !"  No ;  never  until  the  conquest  by  Goths  and 
Vandals,  and  the  subsequent  division  of  the  empire,  was  Rome  broken. 
A  more  compact,  undivided,  powerful  dyaasty  never  arose  on  earth.  Such 
characteristics  then  as  divided  and  broken,  are  utterly  at  variance  with  the 
whole  history  of  Rome,  until  near  the  fifth  century  after  the  birth  of  Christ. 
I  must  confess  myself  unable  to  see,  how  any  one,  who  is  familiar  with  his 
tory,  could  ever  think  of  applying  Dan.  2:  41,  42,  to  the  empire  of  Rome. 
The  contrary  of  what  these  verses  declare,  is  true  of  that  dominion  in  a  most 
remarkable  degree. 

17 


194  CHAP.  VII.  1. 

[After  the  introductory  remarks  already  made,  the  contents  of  ch.  vii.  may  be 
sketched  in  a  few  words.  The  prophetic  vision  of  Daniel  was  by  night,  and  in  a  dream, 
v,  1.  After  great  commotion  of  the  sea  by  stormy  winds,  four  great  beasts  come  up 
from  it,  strong  and  ravenous,  yet  diverse  in  kind,  vs.  2,  3.  The  first  is  a  /zon,  furnished 
with  wings,  to  which,  after  severe  castigation,  a  more  gentle  and  humane  spirit  is  given, 
v.  4.  The  second  is  a  tear,  whose  position,  and  grasp  of  prey,  as  well  as  the  language 
addressed  to  it,  indicate  a  watchful  rapacity  for  conquest,  v.  5  The  third  is  a  jtattthtr, 
with  four  wings  and  four  heads,  bearing  extensive  sway,  v.  6.  The  fourth  is  a  mon 
ster  without  a  name,  strong  and  terrible,  with  teeth  of  iron  and  ten  horns  ;  out  of 
which  comes  up  a  little  horn,  which  roots  out  three  of  the  others,  and  becomes  inso 
lent  and  blasphemous,  vs.  7,  8.  When  the  destruction  occasioned  by  it  reaches  its 
height,  the  Ancient  of  Days  prepares  his  tribunal,  and  ascends  it  surrounded  by  flam 
ing  fire  and  myriads  of  ministering  servants.  The  trial  proceeds,  the  charges  are 
made,  and  the  beast  is  condemned  to  excision  ;  Avhich  sentence  is  executed,  vs.  9 — 1 1. 
The  like  had  been  already  done  to  the  other  three  beasts,  v.  1 2.  The  Son  of  Man 
now  makes  his  appearance  before  the  Ancient  of  Days,  and  dominion  universal  and 
permanent  is  given  to  him,  vs.  13, 14.  Daniel,  overpowered  by  the  vision,  is  troubled 
in  his  mind,  v.  15.  He  approaches  an  angel-interpreter,  and  seeks  to  know  more 
particularly  the  meaning  of  the  vision.  He  is  told,  in  a  few  words,  the  sum  of  its 
meaning :  There  are  and  will  be  four  dynasties ;  to  be  followed  by  a  fifth  which  be 
longs  to  the  saints,  and  is  to  be  perpetual,  vs.  16 — 18.  But  his  curiosity  is  not  satis 
fied,  in  regard  to  the  fourth  beast,  the  characteristics  of  which  he  recapitulates,  vs.  19, 
— 22.  The  interpreter  informs  him,  that  the  fourth  kingdom  will  be  diverse  from  the 
other  three,  and  very  destructive;  that  the  ten  horns  signify  ten  kings  ;  that  another 
(the  little  horn)  shall  arise,  who  will  humble  three  of  the  ten,  utter  boasting  and  blas 
phemy,  and  undertake  to  change  times  and  abrogate  the  law;  that  these  latter  trans 
actions  of  the  little  horn  are  limited  to  three  and  a  half  years,  vs.  23 — 25  ;  and  finally 
that  the  destroyer  shall  himself  be  condemned  and  destroyed,  v.  26.  After  this,  "the 
people  of  the  most  high  God"  shall  receive  a  dominion  that  shall  never  end,  v.  27. 
Here  ends  the  vision;  but  Daniel  was  filled  with  agitation  and  concern  respecting  the 
things  predicted,  although  he  kept  the  whole  matter  to  himself,  v.  28.] 


CHAPTER  VII. 

(1)  In  the  first  year  of  Belteslwzzar  king  of  Babylon,  Daniel  saw  a  dream,  and 
[there  were]  visions  of  his  head,  upon  I, is  couch  ;  then  he  wrote  down  the  dream,  and 
related  the  sum  of  the  matters. 

This  chapter  begins  the  second  and  peculiarly  prophetic  part  of  the  book 
of  Daniel,  in  which  the  writer  forsakes  the  chronology  of  the  preceding 
historical  part  that  he  had  brought  down  to  the  Median  dominion,  and 
goes  back  some  seventeen  years  to  the  first  year  of  Belshazzar.  The  date 
of  the  time,  when  a  prophecy  was  received,  is  commonly  affixed  by  the 
Hebrew  prophets  to  the  oracle  itself.  It  is  not  unusual  for  prophets  to 
receive  a  special  command,  to  commit  to  writing  their  disclosures ;  comp. 
Isa.  30:  8.  8:  1,  16.  Hab.  2:  2.  Apoc.  1: 19.  21:  5.  14: 13.  Daniel  does 


CHAP.  VII.  2.  195 

not  inform  us,  whether  he  in  this  case  received  a  special  command  to  write 
down  his  vision,  nor  of  the  time  when  he  did  write  it ;  but  the  importance 
of  the  subject-matter  of  the  vision,  and  the  trouble  that  it  gave  to  his  mind, 
would  be  very  likely  to  lead  him  to  a  speedy  record  of  what  he  had  seen. 

—  riTnnbn,  lit.  saw  a  dream  ;   but  ntn,  in  Heb.  and  Chaldee  both,  is 
employed  to  designate  the  mental  perception  of  any  kind  of  prophetic 
communication,  whether  by  symbol  or  by  message.   Thus  in  Isa.  2: 1,  we 
have  "D1!  H^n ,  i.  e.  saw  a  message  or  communication.  "  To  see  a  dream," 
is  to  have  a  mental  perception  of  one,  to  be  impressed  with   what  is 
seemingly  presented  to  vision.  —  And  the  visions  of  his  head,  i.  e.  of  his 
brain,  which  was  regarded  as  the  organ  of  the  mind,  head  being  taken  for 
that  which  it  contains  ;  as  often  with  us.     Accordingly  we  might  trans 
late  dso  by  mind.    One  might  also  employ  the  word  brain;  but  in  such 
a  connection,  our  idiom  would  give  to  this  word  the  meaning  of  something 
winch  is  merely  imaginary.    Daniel  means  more  than  this.     On  his  couch 
seems  to  be  added  as  an  accompaniment  to  the  word  dream,  in  order  to 
indicate,  that  it  was  not  a  waking  prophetic  ecstasy,  but  a  vision  seen 
when  he  was  sleeping  on  his  bed ;  comp.  4:  2,  10.  —  ana ,  wrote  out, 
wrote  down,  see  Lex.  on  the  Heb.  DPS  ,  —  JL'JH  ,  sum,  summary,  amount ; 
see  Lex.  Heb.  under  dso  ,  and  comp.  Ps.  119:  160,  where  the  Heb.  dan 
means  sum,  substance  ;  so  Ps.  137:  6.  —  "^v ,  pi.  of  fib^  fern.,  31.  3.  — 
"rax ,  related,  communicated,  whether  by  speaking  or  writing.     The  writer 
means  to  say,  that  he  communicates  the  substance  of  the  visions,  omitting 
particulars  not  specially  important. 

(2)  Daniel  answered  and  said :  I  looked  steadfastly  during  my  vision  in  the  night, 
and  behold  !  the  four  winds  of  the  heavens  burst  forth  upon  the  great  ocean. 

n^fi  Sim ,  Part,  with  helping  verb  (§  47. 1.  a),  denoting  continued  action. 

—  sr-bibns,  lit.  with  night,  but  as  is  employed  for  the  purpose  of  desig 
nating  something  contemporaneous  ;  e.  g.  Dan.  3:  33.  Ps.  72:  5.     So 
Ovid  :   Cum  sole  et  lima  semper  Aratus  erit,  Ars  Amor.  I.  15,  16.  — 
*»n>n ,  const,  pi.  in  its  primitive  sense,  wind.  —  "jn^ira ,  Aph.  Part.  pi.  fern, 
of  rpa ,  agreeing  with  'Ti'n  which  is  here  treated  as  fern.  —  x^b ,  b  show 
ing  the  direction  in  which  the  winds  burst  forth.  —  Great  ocean,  the 
world-sea  of  the  ancients ;  not  an  abstract  noun,  of  course,  but  still  it  is 
here  used  in  a  generic  way.    I  take  it  to  be  here  the  symbol  of  the  heathen 
world,  the  mass  of  the  world's  people  ;   and  in  the  same  way  is  the  phrase 
many  waters  employed  in  Rev.  17:  1,  15.     The  imagery  is  allied  to  the 
tropical  use  of  overflowing  rivers  and  mighty  waves,  for  the  designation 
of  invading  armies  which  overrun  a  country  without  control.   The  image 
is  so  frequent,  that  it  needs  no  further  illustration  or  confirmation. 


196  CHAP.  VII.  3,  4. 

(3)  And  four  huge  beasts  came  up  out  of  the  sea,  differing  one  from  another. 

•£3tj,  Part.  Peal,  pi.  fern,  (from  NSC),  like  "^D.  As  all  these  beasts 
are  of  the  ferocious  and  powerful  kind,  it  is  evident  that  they  are  intended 
to  be  symbols  of  powerful  and  warlike  dynasties.  The  differences  be 
tween  them  is  designed  to  indicate  rather  the  successive  changes  of  em 
pire,  than  any  discrepancies  in  regard  to  their  respective  power  or  cruelty. 
Similar  imagery  the  reader  may  find  in  Ps.  68:  31  (30),  "beast  of  the 
reeds;"  Ezek.  29:  3,  "dragon  in  the  midst  of  the  river"  [Nile]  ;  32:  2, 
"young  lion  of  the  nations;"  Fs.  74: 13,  "  thou  brakest  the  heads  of  the 
dragons  in  the  waters  ;  Isa.  27:  1,  "leviathan,  the  crooked  serpent  .  .  . 
the  dragon  that  is  in  the  sea."  On  all  the  ancient  monuments  of  the  East 
are  found  formae  monsfrosae,  the  symbols  of  dominion  and  of  conquerors. 
The  whole  picture  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  ancient  Mesopotamian  sym 
bols.  In  Apoc.  13: 1,  one  monster-beast  is  represented  as  possessing  the 
united  qualities  of  all  the  four  beasts  here  ;  and  well ;  for  there  the  mighty 
Roman  power  is  symbolized,  which  united  the  characteristics  of  former 
empires,  in  respect  to  everything  which  inspires  dread  and  forces  sub 
mission.  That  the  sea  is  here  represented  as  the  element  from  which  the 
monsters  come,  is  nothing  strange  ;  comp.  Isa.  27:  1.  Apoc.  13:  1.  The 
sea  is  the  natural  element  of  the  largest  monsters ;  the  sea  with  its  tem 
pestuous  waves  has  an  overwhelming  and  destructive  power ;  and  there 
fore  the  representation  here  is  congruous  and  well  chosen. 

(4)  The  first  was  like  to  a  lion,  and  it  had  the  wings  of  an  eagle :  I  looked  stead 
fastly  until  its  wings  were  plucked,  and  it  was  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  and  was 
raised  up  on  its  feet  like  a  man,  and  the  heart  of  a  man  was  given  to  it. 

!-p*ix  =  "nx ,  but  having  (it  seems  to  be  for  the  sake  of  euphony)  a 
paragogic  n-  formative  at  the  end.  It  is  generic,  and  includes  of  course 
both  sexes.  Two  pronouns  in  the  verse  may  seem  to  relate  to  it,  which 
are  of  the  fern,  gender ;  and  probably  also  the  suffix  in  PPBS  ,  (p.  36,  par.  2) 
is  fern.  On  account  of  this,  some  translate  n^J*  lioness,  and  endeavor  to 
vindicate  this  by  remarking,  that  the  lioness-is  fiercer  and  more  ravenous 
than  the  lion.  Still  I  have  translated  the  Heb.  word  by  lion,  because  it 
seems  clear  to  me,  that  all  these  pronouns,  as  well  as  Krwip,  refer  to 
MTH  implied,  and  because  our  own  usage  rarely,  if  ever,  makes  the  lioness 
an  object  of  comparison.  It  seems  plain  here,  as  in  respect  to  the  golden 
head  of  the  colossal  image  (2:  37,  38),  that  the  lion  is  not  designed  to  repre 
sent  the  strength  or  extent  of  the  first  kingdom  as  comparatively  greater 
than  that  of  the  others  ;  for  surely  Alexander's  empire  exceeded  that  of 
Babylon  in  both  these  respects.  It  is  mainly  a  precedence  of  rank,  then, 
which  is  symbolized.  As  in  respect  to  the  image,  one  naturally  begins 


CHAP.  VII.  4.  197 

with  the  head  in  order  to  reckon  up  in  order  its  various  elements  and 
parts,  so  we  should  begin  with  Babylon  in  reckoning  up  the  empires 
symbolized  by  the  four  beasts.  The  lion  is  indeed  called  the  king  of  beasts  ; 
but  the  mountain-bear  is  very  fierce  and  strong,  and  the  panther  even 
more  fierce  and  ravenous  than  the  lion.  Babylon  is  the  oldest  of  the 
kingdoms  here  designated ;  and  the  lion,  which  is  commonly  regarded  as 
the  superior  of  other  beasts  in  respect  to  dignity  of  nature  (if  I  may  so 
speak),  is  a  fit  emblem  of  the  splendid  and  more  ancient  kingdom  of 
Babylon.  Further  than  this,  I  think  the  differences  between  the  beasts 
are  not  to  be  carried.  To  assume  that  the  differences  in  extent  or  power 
are  symbolized  by  the  differences  between  the  beasts,  and  that  the  later 
empire  in  each  case  is  to  be  considered  as  the  weaker,  or  the  inferior 
with  regard  to  extent  or  power,  would  lead  us  to  conclusions  which  un 
questionably  disagree  with  facts.  Still,  all  the  beasts  which  are  named 
in  ch.  vii.  are  characterized  by  strength  and  rapacity.  In  Hebrew,  no 
thing  can  be  more  frequent  than  the  use  of  the  particular  symbol  now  in 
question,  to  designate  destructive  power.  Lion  of  God  makes  an  acces 
sion  to  the  idea  of  lion,  as  it  forms  a  kind  of  superlative  ;  e.  g.  Isa.  29:  2. 
2  Sam.  23: 20.  This  is  the  name  which  Mohammed  gave  his  heroic  uncle, 
Hamza.  —  "psa ,  masc.  here,  plur.  where  the  Heb.  would  employ  the 
dual.  The  Chaldee  has  no  dual,  excepting  a  few  cases  that  are  retained 
in  the  biblical  Chaldee.  —  Wings  of  an  eagle,  is  an  additional  image  of 
swiftness  and  strength  ;  comp.  Jer.  4:  13.  48:  40.  49:  22.  Lam.  4:  19. 
Ezek.  17:  3,  7.  Ob.  v.  4.  Hab.  1:  8 ;  not  the  image  simply  of  haughti 
ness  or  of  the  spirit  of  domination,  as  some  have  explained  it.  —  rib , 
pron./era.  as  has  already  been  noted.  —  'IBI'TO,  Peil  Part.  3  pi.  for  pass, 
verb,  §  13.  2.  —  f^sa,  plur.  masc.,  with  a  suffix  fern,  relating  to  n^n, 
for  both  Jn"i-  and  ini—  are  sometimes  used  as  fern.  sing,  forms  of  the  suf 
fix  instead  of  n-,  see  p.  36,  2nd  par.  —  rib-op,  Part.  pass.  fern.  ;  used 
for  the  passive  verb,  §  13.  2.  It  was  raised  up  from  the  earth  as  a  man, 
does  not  mean  that  the  whole  beast  was  lifted  up  into  the  air,  but  that  it 
stood  up  on  its  hinder  legs,  taking  the  upright  position  of  a  man.  The 
purpose  of  this  is  explained  more  fully,  by  the  clause  that  follows.  — 
—  "pbin ,  a  Hebraizing  dual  form,  found  only  in  biblical  Chaldee. — 
rraipn,  Hebraizing  Hophal  of  nip  =  Ittaphal,  §  12.  6. —  The  heart  of  a 
man  was  given  to  it,  i.  e.  (in  connection  with  the  preceding  verse)  not  only 
did  it  take  the  outward  position  of  a  man,  but  also  partake  of  his  internal 
mind  and  feelings.  I  understand  the  design  here  to  be,  to  characterize 
the  greater  moderation  and  humanity  which  the  Babylonish  dominion 
exhibited  after  Nebuchadnezzar's  malady  and  restoration,  or,  to  use  the 
language  of  the  prophet,  after  its  wings  were  plucked.  The  language  seems 

17* 


198  CHAP.  VII.  5. 

plainly  to  be  borrowed  from  the  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  who,  driven 
from  men  by  his  madness,  associated  with  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and  ate 
grass  like  the  oxen,  4:  29.  As  he  imitated  the  beasts  in  this,  it  is  not  at 
all  improbable  that  he  may  also  have  imitated  them  in  his  position  and 
movements.  From  this  state  he  rose,  by  the  restoration  of  his  reason 
(4:  33),  i.  e.  the  heart  of  a  man  was  given  him.*  As  the  Babylonish  empire 
is  designated  or  represented  by  him  (2:  38),  so  here,  the  humbling  of 
the  Babylonish  dynasty,  and  the  rendering  of  it  more  humane  and  less 
assuming,  is  set  forth  by  a  likeness  taken  from  Nebuchadnezzar  and  his 
condition.  The  particular  object  of  this  seems  after  all  to  be,  the  distinc 
tive  designation  or  specification  of  the  first  dynasty.  To  suppose,  as  Ber- 
tholdt  does,  that  the  last  two  clauses  of  v.  4  serve  merely  to  show,  that 
dynasties  of  men  and  not  of  beasts  are  in  reality  meant,  is,  to  say  the 
least,  quite  needless.  What  reader  ever  supposed,  that  Daniel  is  here  de 
scribing  the  literal  dominion  of  beasts  ? 

(5)  And  behold  !  another  second  beast,  like  to  a  bear,  and  it  \vas  lifted  up  on  one 
side,  and  three  ribs  were  in  its  mouth  between  its  teeth,  and  thus  said  they  to  it  : 
Arise,  devour  much  flesh  ! 


ns^sn  ,  second,  marks  the  order,  while  ^.rw  merely  designates  the  idea 
of  difference,  distinctness.  —  n^  ,  Part.  fern,  of  K^  .  —  ^n  laral?  ,  as 
rendered  above,  is  in  the  Ace.,  governed  by  the  Hiphil-formed  verb 
rffi^pri.  Many  (26)  Codices  and  editions  read  laia  (with  Sin)  ;  and 
many  critics  prefer  this  reading,  because  the  Targumic  word  IEO  ,  ap 
pears  to  be  the  same  word  with  merely  a  different  orthography,  and 
-tEO  means  side.  However,  the  form  "iwto  has  no  appropriate  root. 
But  what  is  lifting  or  raising  up  one  side  ?  Not  stood  aside,  stetit  seorsim, 
i.  e.  stood  aloof  from  harming  the  Hebrews,  as  the  ancient  Rabbins, 
Jerome,  Grotius,  al.,  supposed  ;  nor,  (as  some  others  suppose),  stood 
aside  in  the  sense  of  retiring  from  a  part  of  the  former  wide  domain  of 
Babylon,  for  the  Medo-Persian  kings  did  not  relinquish  any  of  that  do 
main  ;  nor,  (as  C.  B.  Mich,  and  Rosenm.),  stood  ly  the  side,  viz.  of  the 
lion,  i.  e.  Media  and  Persia  were  on  the  loundaries  or  sides  of  Babylon  ; 
much  less  does  it  mean,  as  Bertholdt  and  Havernick  assert  :  stood  on  its 
hinder  feet,  viz.  in  the  attitude  of  attack,  for  side  is  not  hinder  feet,  and  as 
yet  the  bear  is  not  roused  up  entirely,  but  is  subsequently  called  upon  to 
arise.  It  is  in  itself,  indeed,  a  somewhat  difficult  phrase  ;  but  the  diffi 
culty  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  fact,  that  until  lately,  we  have  been 
ignorant  of  a  like  symbol  sculptured  on  the  ancient  monuments  of  Persia. 

*  Since  this  was  written,  I  have  met  with  Hoffman's  Weissagung  und  Erfilllung, 
and  find  this  able  writer  has  presented  a  similar  view  of  Daniel's  imagery. 


CHAP.  VII.  5.  199 

Miinter  (Rel.  der  Bab.  s.  112)  has  given  us  a  description  (with  an  en 
graving)  of  an  animal  of  the  symbolic  kind,  in  a  group  near  the  stay  of 
Belus,  which,  kneeling  or  lying  on  the  right  foot,  has  its  left  one  erect. 
A  sense  of  security  combined  with  watchfulness,  seems  to  be  the  indica 
tion.  Probably  this  symbol  now  on  the  monuments  of  Persia  and  Baby 
lon,  was  a  part  of  what  belonged  to  the  insignia,  of  the  royal  and  national 
standards  ;  (see  p.  177  above).  Its  significance,  when  viewed  in  such  a 
light,  is  certainly  striking.  —  F^TC!  >  as  some  editions  have  it,  (to  which 
many  versions  have  conformed),  is  the  pass,  or  Hophal  ;  but  it  may  be 
read  as  in  Hiphil  (rra-'pH  ),  and  applied  actively,  (which  is  grammatical 
in  respect  to  this  Conj.),  to  the  beast  as  raising  up  one  side,  viz.  by  put 
ting  one  of  its  fore  legs  into  an  erect  posture  —  V?V? ,  from  sVs-  =  the 
Heb.  sbs  (comp.  in  Lex.  5  and  2)  ;  ribs,  not  tusks  (Berth.)  ;  not  three 
classes  of  teeth,  viz.  side,  cheek,  and  incisor  teeth  (Hav.)  ;  for  how  can 
these  be  said  to  be  between  the  teeth  ?  But  three  ribs  constitute  a  large 
portion  of  prey  or  ravin  already  in  the  animal's  power,  or  (in  words 
borrowed  from  the  nature  of  the  symbol)  a  large  mouthful.  It  seems  to 
me  quite  incongruous,  to  consider  these  ribs  as  teeth,  in  as  much  as  they 
are  between  the  teeth ;  or  to  regard  them  (with  Jerome,  Ephrem  Syrus, 
and  Rosenm.)  as  indicative  of  Media,  Persia,  and  Babylon.  The  Medo- 
Persian  empire  is  itself  the  bear.  What  it  grasps,  or  devours,  must  be 
something  else.  It  may  be,  that  Babylonia,  Assyria,  and  Lydia,  are 
symbolized  by  the  ribs ;  or,  with  some  modification  of  the  design  of  the 
symbol,  the  three  ribs  may  indicate  the  great  divisions  of  the  empire,  6:  2. 
But  if  the  latter  be  true,  then  the  symbol  does  not  relate  to  devouring, 
but  to  the  complete  grasp  of  power.  —  msd  "pa,  between  its  teeth  clearly 
indicates,  of  course,  that  the  "ps&s  in  his  mouth  is  prey,  and  not  the  teeth 
themselves  ;  the  fern.  suff.  has  relation  to  srpn .  The  word  as  Chaldee 
I  do  not  find  in  Ges.  Lex.  ;  but  it  follows  the  analogy  of  the  Heb.  "iJ , 
§  29.  2.  a.  —  TT?N  5  lit.  they  said,  Part.  3  plur.  ;  it  might  be  rendered 
passively,  §  49.  3.  b.  —  na«ip,  Imper./em.  in  relation  to  jrrnn  again  ;  see 
Hoffman  ut  sup.  I.  s.  283.  —  Eat  much  flesh,  exhibits  the  imagery  car 
ried  consistently  through.  Flesh  is  the  appropriate  food  of  bears.  Of 
course,  when  a  dynasty  set  up  and  supported  by  conquest  and  rapine  is 
characterized  in  this  way,  the  meaning  is :  Rise  up,  and  make  extensive 
conquests,  i.  e.  seize  upon  much  prey.  Such  was  the  case  with  Cyrus, 
according  to  Xenophon,  Cyrop.  VIII.  7.  He  extended  his  dominion  to  Sy 
ria,  and  Egypt,  even  unto  Ethiopia,  and  reigned  over  the  countries  from 
the  Mediterranean  Sea  to  India,  and  from  the  Euxine  to  the  Red  Sea. 
Afterwards  Darius  Hystaspis  extended  the  boundaries  of  empire  still  fur 
ther,  even  into  Thrace  and  India.  But  how  any  one  could  satisfy  him- 


200  CHAP.  VII.  6. 

self  that  dominion  thus  characterized  designates  that  of  Media  under  Da 
rius  the  Mede,  as  Lengerke  appears  to  have  done,  I  do  not  see.  That 
king  was  more  conspicuous  for  intemperance  and  debauchery,  than  for 
ambition  and  love  of  conquest  ;  and  to  gratify  his  disgraceful  appetites, 
he  retired  from  all  personal  participation  in  the  conquest  of  Babylon, 
and  ever  afterwards  staid  at  his  palace  and  houses  of  pleasure.  Nothing 
more,  worthy  of  note,  was  undertaken  until  after  his  death  ;  which  hap 
pened  in  about  two  years  subsequent  to  the  capture  of  Babylon.  Len 
gerke  indeed  holds  the  account  of  such  a  prince  as  Darius  the  Mede, 
both  in  Xenophon  and  the  Bible,  to  be  a  mere  fiction.  But  even  if  this 
were  conceded  to  him,  why  should  we  suspect  the  writer  of  representing 
the  dynasty  in  question  as  doing  things,  which  are  wholly  incongruous 
with  the  inefficiency  and  the  slothful  timidity  of  I)arius  the  Mede  ? 
If  the  book  before  us  be  a  fiction,  it  does  not  show  any  want  of  talent,  or 
any  lack  of  knowledge  as  to  Oriental  history  or  customs.  At  least  it  seems 
to  me,  that  just  and  generous  criticism  will  not  venture  to  affirm  that  it 
does.  As  to  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  phrase,  the  devouring  of  flesh, 
comp.  Mic.  3:  2,  3.  Rev.  17:  6.  As  to  the  rapacity  of  the  bear,  it  is  a 
well  known  characteristic.  Aristotle  calls  it  GaQxocpaywv  and  £o>oi>  na^n- 
yayov,  (Hist.  Nat.  VIII.  5).  Not  unfrequently  it  attacks  men,  as  well 
as  the  larger  animals.  The  overruling  hand  of  Providence,  moreover,  is 
not  lost  sight  of  by  the  writer  in  the  whole  matter  respecting  this  dynasty. 
—  It  was  said  or  they  said,  means,  that  God  or  Heaven  gave  command 
or  permission  to  devour  much  prey,  i.  e.  the  concerns  and  conquests  of  this 
dynasty  were  under  the  government  of  a  superintending  Providence. 

(6)  After  this  I  looked  attentively,  and  lo  !  another  [heast]  like  to  a  panther,  and 
it  had  four  wings  of  a  bird  upon  its  back,  and  four  heads  belonged  to  the  beast,  and 
dominion  was  iven  to  it. 


TCJ3  ,  like  a  panther,  which  seems  to  be  the  true  sense,  rather  than 
leopard  as  in  our  Eng.  version.  This  beast  is  swifter  than  the  lion  or  bear, 
and  equally  powerful.  —  Four  wings  of  a  bird  is  quite  intelligible.  If, 
in  v.  4,  the  wings  of  an  eagle  assigned  to  the  lion  indicate  power  and  ve 
locity,  the  two  pairs  of  wings  given  to  the  panther  must  indicate  great  ve 
locity.  As  the  writer  does  not  here  repeat  the  word  eagle  in  connection 
with  wings,  but  merely  says  wings  of  a  bird,  the  natural  conclusion  is, 
that  he  means  to  represent  the  first  beast  as  the  stronger  of  the  two, 
but  not  so  swift.  Facts  correspond.  ,  Nebuchadnezzar  had  a  mighty  force, 
a  great  sway  ;  Alexander,  with  a  handful  of  troops  subdued  the  oriental 
world  :  Nebuchadnezzar  founded  an  empire  which  lasted  almost  a  cen 
tury  ;  Alexander  one  which  ended  with  his  life.  The  point  of  comparative 


CHAP.  VII.  6.  201 

strength,  therefore,  is  not  here  taken  into  view,  but  that  of  rapid  movement. 
In  this  Nebuchadnezzar  excelled  much,  but  Alexander  outstripped  all 
other  conquerors  in  the  East  or  West.  Hence  two  pairs  of  wings  to  sym 
bolize  his  movements.  But  how  are  we  to  find  any  adequate  meaning  of 
the  imagery,  if  we  apply  these  wings  (with  Lengerke  and  some  others) 
to  the  Medo-Persian  dynasty  ?  Neither  Cyrus,  nor  Darius,  nor  Xerxes, 
were  remarkable  for  rapidity  of  conquest,  beyond  other  conquerors. 
Cyrus  was  as  long  in  subduing  Asia  Minor,  as  Alexander  was  in  subdu 
ing  all  the  East.  —  W^a,  plur.  with  fern,  suff.,  in  reference  to  rvnn  .  — 
Four  heads,  not  indicative  here  of  four  kings,  as  Leng.  supposes.  To 
establish  this,  he  appeals  to  Dan.  11:  2  and  Rev.  13:  1.  But  the  first 
passage  makes  no  mention  of  heads  ;  and  the  last  mentions  seven  heads, 
which  symbolize  seven  kings  (Rev.  17:  10),  but  they  also  symbolize 
seven  hills  (Rev.  17:  9).  This  symbol,  then,  is  not  limited  to  signifying 
kings.  This  is  still  more  clearly  decided  in  Rev.  12:  3,  where  seven  heads 
are  ascribed  to  the  dragon.  The  four  heads,  then,  may  be  regarded  as 
the  symbol  of  dominion  in  the  four  different  quarters  of  the  world,  i.  e.  of 
universal  dominion ;  for  Satan's  seven  heads  are  clearly  emblems  of  his 
great  power.  The  ram  (Medo-Persia)  in  8:  4  is  described  as  pushing 
his  attacks  northward,  southward,  and  westward,  but  not  eastward ; 
while  in  the  case  before  us,  the  four  heads  indicate  all  four  directions,  if  I 
am  right  in  my  views  of  the  meaning  of  the  symbol.  Well  does  2:  39 
("  he  shall  rule  over  all  the  earth")  correspond  with  the  passage  before  us  ; 
and  also  with  8:  21 — 23,  and  11:  3,  4.  Leng.  plainly  intimates,  that  the 
writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel  supposed,  that  there  were  only  four  kings  of 
the  Persian  dynasty  (11:  2),  and  that  he  has  confounded  Darius  Codo- 
manus  with  Darius  Hystaspis,  and  so  ranged  Alexander  next  after  him. 
He  adds,  that  "  the  ignorance  of  the  Maccabaean  period  respecting  the 
history  of  the  East,  makes  the  whole  matter  a  thing  that  ought  not  to 
strike  us  with  any  surprise,"  (s.  308).  Yet  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say,  it  would  be  somewhat  surprising  to  me,  that  such  a  man  as  wrote  the 
book  of  Daniel,  and  belonged  to  a  nation  that  had  been,  from  Cyrus  down 
to  Alexander,  under  the  Persian  domain,  should  have  thought  and  said 
that  Persia  had  only  four  kings,  when  it  actually  had  thirteen.  The 
knowledge  of  empires  displayed  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  forbids  such  a 
supposition.  Could  events  like  those  which  took  place  in  respect  to  the 
Jewish  people  under  the  Persian  domain,  be  so  little  known,  or  so  entirely 
forgotten,  after  a  lapse  of  time  so  small?  And  although  Lengerke  assures  us 
that  there  is  nichts  auffallig  in  all  this,  my  own  convictions  are  quite  to  the 
contrary.  Finally,  the  superintendence  of  a  higher  power  is  again  intimated : 
And  dominion  was  given  to  it.  "  The  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God." 


202  CHAP.  VII.  7,  8. 

So  even  the  mischievous  beast,  in  Apoc.  13:  3,  is  said  to  have  "  power 
given  to  it." 

(7)  After  this,  I  looked  attentively  during  the  visions  of  the  night,  and  behold  ! 
a  fourth  beast,  terrible,  strong,  even  exceedingly  powerful,  arid  it  had  great  teeth  of 
iron  ;  it  devoured,  and  crushed,  and  trode  the  remnant  under  its  feet,  and  it  differed 
from  all  the  other  beasts  which  were  before  it  ;  and  it  had  ten  horns. 


adj.  (root  "JITD,  which  in  Arabic  means  to  be  strong,  robust), 
formed  by  x  praefix,  and  i  the  adj.  ending  for  fern,  rr  .  The  second 
clause,  tt'rpp  KS^Pi  ,  is  merely  an  intensive  of  the  preceding  word.  — 
•pj'dj  ,  Hebraizing  dual,  lit.  two  rows  of  teeth  ;  found  only  in  biblical  Chal- 
dee,  §  31.  2.  —  Great  iron  teeth,  means  a  very  destructive  power. 
Hence,  in  the  sequel,  devour,  crush.  —  •"tjr'ns  ,  Aph.  fern.  Part,  of  pjr'n  . 
—  fios'n  ,  Part.  fern.  Peal  —  n^vv  ,  fern.  Part.  Aph.,  for  the  beast  is 
here  regarded  as  fern.  —  n^'S'np  ,  with  fern.  suff.  p.  36,  par.  second.  — 
Y??")£  ,  dual  form  of  ynj?  ,  Hebraizing  like  •prj  above.  The  writer  gives 
to  this  fourth  beast  no  particular  name.  Plainly  it  was  a  peculiar  mon 
ster.  The  reason  why  he  omits  a  name,  seems  to  be,  that  in  the  world 
of  nature  no  similitude  could  be  found,  for  in  no  case  of  really  existing 
beasts,  are  four  of  them  united  in  one,  so  as  to  constitute  an  appropriate 
symbol  for  the  four  kingdoms  of  Alexander's  successors.  He  classes  these 
under  the  dynasty,  comprehensively  considered,  which  grew  up  out  of 
the  predominance  or  victories  of  the  Greeks  in  the  East.  But  when 
enough  is  introduced  to  designate  the  general  nature  of  the  dynasty,  both 
here  and  in  ch.  viii.  and  xi,  he  goes  over  into  a  notice  of  only  such  kings 
as  were  in  the  neighborhood  of  Palestine,  and  had  more  or  less  to  do 
with  annoying  it.  As  Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  incomparably  the  most 
annoying  and  mischievous  of  them  all,  so  a  peculiar  share  of  the  prophecy 
respecting  the  fourth  dynasty,  is  allotted  to  him  in  each  of  the  chapters 
named.  It  is  evident  from  a  comparison  of  historical  facts  as  well  as  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  that  a  dynasty  is  spoken  of  by  Daniel  as  more  or 
less  dreadful  and  destructive,  according  to  the  measure  in  which  Pales 
tine  was  actually  affected  by  it  in  this  way.  See  the  fuller  discussion  of 
this  subject  in  the  introduction  to  this  chapter,  p.  183  seq.  above.  A  right 
view  of  this  matter  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  proper  interpreta 
tion  of  the  book. 

(8)  I  considered  attentively  the  horn?,  and  behold  !  another  little  horn  came  up 
between  them,  and  three  of  the  former  horns  were  rooted  out  from  before  it.  and  lo  ! 
there  were  eyes  like  the  eyes  of  a  man  in  that  horn,  and  a  mouth  speaking  great 
things. 

The  introduction  which  the  writer  here  makes  to  his  account  of  the 


CHAP.  VII.  8.  203 

little  horn,  shows,  by  its  specialty  of  manner  and  its  solemnity,  that  he  is 
going  to  bring  forward  something  which  is  peculiarly  worthy  of  the  read 
er's  attention  —  at  least,  something  in  which  he  himself  felt  the  deepest 
interest.  It  is  similar  to  that  which  is  prefixed  to  the  accounts  respec 
tively  of  each  of  the  four  beasts.  That  horns  are  the  well  known  symbols 
of  power,  specially  of  power  as  directed  against  opposing  forces,  is  too 
familiar  to  need  proof;  the  reader  may  compare  Deut.  33:  17.  1  Sam.  2: 
10.  IK.  22:11.  Ps.  18:3(2).  112:9.  132:17.  148:14.  Thelikeisof- 
ten  found  in  the  Apoc.,  and  in  the  book  of  Enoch.  —  ^T~.\  >  fem>  adj. 
for  "j^p  is  here  treated  as  feminine.  This  is  to  be  understood  as  the 
symbol  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  on  his  first  accession  to  the  throne,  when 
the  parties  against  him  were  numerous  and  strong,  being  the  friends  of 
the  kings  whom  he  had  deposed.  The  progress  of  the  little  horn's  growth 
is  not  here  specified ;  but  in  8:  9 — 11  there  is  a  special  allusion  to  the 
gradual  increase  of  the  same  little  horn,  until  it  becomes  a  great  one.  In 
11:  21,  the  origin  of  Antiochus'  dominion  is  described  in  conformity  with 
the  JT^ST  of  the  verse  before  us.  And  when  this  same  horn  is  said  in  7: 
20  to  "  look  more  stout  than  its  fellows,"  this  is  no  contradiction  of  the 
preceding  passage.  Antiochus  began  his  reign  with  feeble  means  of  sup 
porting  himself,  but  by  flattery,  craft,  and  dexterous  management,  he  rose 
to  formidable  power,  which  he  wielded  so  as  to  annoy  the  Jews  beyond 
all  former  example.  The  seer  keeps  his  eye  upon  him,  during  the  whole 
course  through  which  he  passes ;  and  it  is  in  the  latter  part  of  his  course, 
that  he  *  becomes  more  stout  than  his  fellows.  —  r^P  =  *">Ii^*?  i°  v-  20, 
fern.  3  pers.  sing,  in  Peal,  with  a  final  (-)  instead  of  the  normal  (T),  be 
ing  pointed  like  the  3  fern,  in  verbs  xb  .  In  general,  the  Chaldee  vowel- 
points  vary,  according  to  the  Rabbinic  usage,  far  more  than  the  Hebrew, 
and  the  varieties  of  pronunciation  are  numerous  and  some  of  them  per 
plexing.  In  "(in'Tpa  the  vowels  are  adapted  to  the  corrected  reading  ",rp!p3 
i.  e.  to  &fem.  suffix.  But  this  is  needless.  The  masc.  "ji^jr?  is  equally 
good;  for  the  gender  of  the  horns  is  shifted  in  vs.  19,  20.  8:  9,  al.,  i.  e. 
the  gender  of  those  whom  the  horns  symbolize,  is  applied  to  the  horns 
themselves ;  which  is  often  done  in  the  Apocalypse.  —  njrrrx  (for 
so  the  Kethibh  should  be  read)  =  *n£rrx  the  normal  form,  the 
Pattah  under  the  p  being  prolonged,  (as  it  is  sometimes,  particu 
larly  when  in  an  open  syllable),  as  in  n|?bo  above.  The  sylla 
ble  -rx  (for  rx)  Syraizes,  §  25.  1.  The  grammarians  and  critics  have 
mostly  overlooked  these  forms.  Besides  this,  nx  (for  the  normal  rx) 
is  a  liberty  not  unfrequent  in  the  later  Hebrew,  specially  when  x  is  the 
first  letter  ;  for  then  it  naturally  inclines  to  take  a  Seghol  in  a  closed  syl 
lable.  The  form  of  the  verb  in  the  Kethibh  is  masc.,  for  K;P.J2  is  treated 


204  CHAP.  VII.  8. 

as  masc.,  in  accordance  with  what  has  just  been  said.  The  corrected  read 
ing  changes  the  form  so  as  to  accommodate  the/em,  gender,  viz.  rnpyp.x . 
I  have  translated  the  word  by  rooted  out  (evellit,  eradicavit)  ;  which  how 
ever  means,  in  our  language,  somewhat  more  than  is  here  intended,  un 
less  we  limit  the  idea  to  the  kingly  power  or  office.  In  v.  20,  three  horns 
are  said  to  fall  before  the  little  horn  ;  and  in  v.  24,  the  same  occurrence 
is  thus  described  by  the  angel-interpreter :  "  three  kings  shall  be  humbled" 
I  understand  the  passages,  when  thus  compared,  as  designating  the  dethro- 
nization  of  three  kings,  but  not  of  their  actual  destruction  as  individuals. 
As  kings,  three  of  them  are  described  by  different  modes  of  expression, 
viz.,  it  is  said  that  they  are  rooted  out,  fall,  and  that  they  are  humbled. 
The  least  which  these  expressions  are  susceptible  of  meaning,  is,  that  An- 
tiochus  will  dethrone  three  kings,  and  humble  them  in  respect  to  their 
claims  of  right  to  regal  power.  —  sfcfiO  calls  particular  attention  to  a  no 
table  circumstance :  Eyes  like  to  the  eyes  of  a  man  were  in  this  horn. 
T?";3>,  for  form,  see  p.  94.  No.  IV.  c.  That  eyes  symbolize  sagacity,  dex 
terity,  watchfulness,  is  plain.  The  eye  speaks  the  meaning  of  the  soul. 
One  reason  why  this  is  said  here,  seems  to  be,  in  order  to  make  the  reader 
aware  that  the  horn  symbolizes  a  human  being ;  for  eyes  belong  not  to 
the  proper  horn.  Says  Jerome :  [He  speaks  thus]  "  that  we  may  not, 
according  to  the  notion  of  some,  think  it  to  be  a  devil,  or  a  demon,  but 
one  of  those  men  in  whom  the  whole  of  Satan  is  to  dwell  bodily."  Ex 
actly  what  Jerome  meant  by  the  last  clause  here,  it  might  be  difficult  to 
determine.  However,  that  the  watchfulness  and  sagacity  of  the  little  horn 
are  here  indicated,  and  that  the  word  horn  is  entirely  exempted  from  be 
ing  understood  in  a  literal  sense,  seems  clear;  comp.  11: 21 — 25.  8: 23 — 25. 
Coming  to  the  throne  under  circumstances  such  as  existed  at  that  time  in 
Syria,  it  was  wonderful  that  Antiochus  should  succeed  so  well  as  he  did  ; 
and  it  fully  justifies  what  is  said  in  the  passages  to  which  I  have  refer 
red,  respecting  his  cunning  and  his  dexterity.  Appian  says  of  him : 
"  He  ruled  Syria  and  the  nations  around  her  I yxQu.'i<a$"  De  Reb.  Syr. 
c.  45.  —  i"ji  osn  ,  a  mouth  speaking,  etc.,  of  course  betokens  that  a  man 
is  designated  by  the  symbol ;  for  since  he  had  ascribed  to  the  horn  the 
eyes  of  a  man,  he  now  proceeds  (in  accordance  with  this)  to  assign  to  it 
also  a  mouth.  —  Speaking  great  things,  i.  e.  uttering  words  of  boasting, 
haughtiness,  and  contumacy.  This  was  a  striking  characteristic  of  Antio 
chus,  when  he  had  arrived  at  the  height  of  his  power  ;  comp.  v.  11,  20,  25. 
23 — 25.  11:36,  and  see  1  Mace.  1:  24.  Comparing  the  whole  of  these  pas 
sages,  it  would  seem  that  the  writer  means  particularly  to  characterize 
the  impious  boastings  and  reproaches  of  Antiochus  against  God,  his  tem 
ple,  the  holy  city,  and  the  Jewish  people. 


CHAP.  VII.  8.  EXCURSUS  ON  THE  FOURTH  BEAST.  205 

Next  (vs.  9 — 11)  follows  the  condemnation  and  excision  of  the  blas 
phemer  and  persecutor  of  the  Jews.  Then,  inasmuch  as  all  the  four 
beasts  are  now  destroyed  (v.  12),  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  supervenes 
—  a  kingdom  that  is  to  have  no  end. 

EXCURSUS  ON  THE  FOURTH  BEAST.  To  facilitate  our  future  progress, 
it  may  be  well  to  satisfy  ourselves  of  the  position,  which,  as  interpreters, 
we  ought  to  take  ;  for  much  is  dependent  on  it.  Having  already  discussed 
this  subject  at  large,  in  the  introduction  to  this  chapter,  I  shall  give  here 
only  brief  and  summary  views  of  points  already  illustrated,  touching  occa 
sionally  on  other  points  necessary  to  complete  a  view  of  the  whole  subject. 

To  me  it  seems  a  philological  impossibility,  provided  we  first  make  a 
thorough  comparison  of  the  third  and  fourth  dynasties,  (as  presented  in 
chaps,  ii.  vii.  viii.  xi.,  and  fully  spread  before  the  eye  of  the  reader  in  the 
preceding  pages),  to  maintain  that  the  third  dynasty  is  not  that  of  Alexan 
der,  or  that  the  fourth  is  not  that  of  his  successors,  the  Grecian  chiefs. 
But  for  the  sake  of  obtaining  still  further  satisfaction,  let  us  for  a  moment 
reverse  the  method  of  considering  the  subject,  and  begin  with  the  fourth 
dynasty.  What  are  the  discriminating  features,  the  true  and  satisfactory 
diagnostics  of  this  dynasty  ?  I  shall  mention  only  such  as  I  deem  to  be  ^ 
decisive  and  satisfactory. 

(1)  The  ten  horns  belong  to  the  fourth  beast  (7:  7,  19,  20,  24),  and  the 
little  horn  springs  up  among  them  (7:  8,  20,  24).  The  ten  horns  are  ten 
kings  (7:  24),  and  the  little  horn  is  the  eleventh  (7:  24).  Now  it  is  quite 
plain,  from  a  comparison  of  7:  7,  8,  23 — 25,  with  8:  8 — 12,  22 — 25,  and  11: 
21 — 45,  that  the  same  individual  is  characterized  in  all  these  passages. 
His  gradual  growth,  his  cunning,  his  destructive  aggressions,  his  persecu 
tions,  his  pride,  his  boasting,  his  blasphemies,  his  profanation  of  sacred 
things,  and  his  sudden  and  violent  death,  are  all  depicted  in  colors  so 
nearly  alike,  and  in  outlines  so  exactly  alike,  (excepting  that  in  some  of 
the  cases,  e.  g.  in  chap,  xi.,  the  sketch  is  much  more  amply  filled  out),  that 
I  cannot  perceive  any  reasonable  ground  of  doubt  that  they  respect  the 
same  personage.  But  if  this  be  a  correct  position,  then  is  the  fourth  dy 
nasty  plainly  designated  beyond  a  reasonable  question.  "  The  little  horn" 
did  not  spring  from  a  Roman,  but  from  the  Syrian  dynasty.  It  came  up 
amidst  ten  horns,  and  rooted  out  three  of  them  (7:  8,  20,  24)  ;  and  if  the 
little  horn  be  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  then  is  it  certain  that  the  ten  horns, 
i.  e.  the  ten  kings  (7:  24),  are  Syrian  and  not  Roman. 

It  is  no  objection  to  this  argument,  that  the  imagery  employed  in  chap, 
viii.  varies  from  that  of  chap.  vii.  What  is  a  bear  in  7:  5,  is  a  ram  in 
8:  3  seq.  What  is  a  panther  with  four  wings  and  heads  in  7:  6,  is  a  "  he- 
goat  that  touched  not  the  ground,"  with  a  notable  horn,  in  8:  5  seq.  In 
chap,  vii.,  the  destruction  of  the  beasts  is  iiot  described  severally,  but  col 
lectively,  (7:  11,  12)  ;  while  in  chap,  viii.,  the  destruction  of  each  preceding 
dynasty  is  severally  related  (vs.  7,  8),  before  a  new  one  is  announced. 
The  diversity  of  the  fourth  beast  from  all  the  others,  is  specifically  declared 
by  direct  assertion  in  7:  7,  19,  23,  while  in  chap.  viii.  it  is  described  by 
symbolic  imagery,  viz.  "  the  great  horn  [Alexander]  is  broken,  and  in  its 
room  came  up  four  notable  ones,  toward  the  four  winds  of  heaven,"  (8:  8). 

18 


206          CHAP.  VII.  8.  EXCURSUS  ON  THE  FOURTH  BEAST. 

Now  these  four  horns  have  no  direct  concern  with  the  ten  horns  of  7:  7,  20, 
24.  The  latter  are  kings  (7,  24)  ;  the  former  are  kingdoms  (8:  8,  22)  ;  not 
kingdoms  in  the  sense  that  they  make  what  the  writer,  for  his  particular 
purpose,  regards  as  separate  dynasties,  but  minor  kingdoms  under  one  com 
prehensive  view,  viz.  that  of  Grecian  sway,  or  sway  by  Alexander's  succes 
sors.  So  8:  8,  22,  and  11:4,  clearly  show.  The  last  or  fourth  is  the  di 
vided  kingdom  ;  for  it  has  no  symbol  among  beasts  that  can  be  named  (7: 
7)  ;  it  consists  of  iron  and  clay  (2:  40 — 43)  ;  it  is  divided  to  the  four  winds 
of  heaven  (8:  8.  11:  4).  Of  course  there  is  no  incongruity  between  the 
four  horns  in  8:  8,  22,  and  the  ten  horns  in  7:  7,  20,  24.  The  former  merely 
symbolize  the  four  great  divisions  of  Alexander's  empire  (8:  21,  22.  11:  4)  ; 
the  latter  signify  ten  kings  (7:  24),  which  will  precede  "the  little  horn" 
(ib.),  and  among  ivhich  this  horn  springs  up  (7:  8).  The  ten  horns,  more 
over,  all  belong  to  one  of  the  four  great  divisions  ;  for  out  of  one  of  these 
four,  the  little  horn  springs  up  (8:  9),  which  shoots  forth  in  the  midst  of 
the  ten  (7:  8).  Here  then  is  no  incongruity.  It  is  merely  a  diversity  in 
the  mode  of  representation,  grateful  to  the  reader,  and  meeting  the  reason 
able  demand  of  aesthetics  in  regard  to  variety,  in  the  modes  of  description. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  parallels  in  the  descriptions  of  the  fourth  beast,  and 
above  all  in  those  of  the  little  horn,  ii.  vii.  viii.  xi.,  are  so  striking,  that  iden 
tity  of  person  or  object  in  all  of  them  seems  to  be  a  thing  so  evident,  that 
fair  denial  is  out  of  question. 

y  Hengstenberg,  who  strenuously  contends  for  the  Roman  dynasty  as  the 
fourth,  acknowledges  that  the  resemblances  between  the  little  horn  in  chap, 
vii.,  and  the  descriptions  in  8:  9  seq.  11:  21  seq.  are  such  as  to  constitute 
the  most  weighty  argument  in  favor  of  identity  of  person  in  all,  (Authentic 
des  Daniel,  s.  213).  How  then  is  this  argument  to  be  answered  ?  In  his 
view  very  easily,  viz.  '  Antiochus  is  the  prototype,  Antichrist  the  antitype ; 
what  had  a  partial  fulfilment  in  the  former,  will  have  a  complete  one  in 
the  latter/  In  other  words,  a  vnovoia  is  here  to  be  supposed,  i.  e.  a  double 
sense  must  be  given  to  the  words.  And  why  ?  "  Because  Typik  is 
grounded  in  the  very  essence  of  the  O.  Test,"  (s.  213).  I  deny  not  at  all 
the  typical  nature  of  much  that  was  Mosaic  and  Levitical,  as  to  riles  and 
ordinances.  I  fully  assent  to  all  which  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He 
brews  has  said  on  this  subject.  But  all  the  types  relate  to  Christ,  his  offices, 
his  sufferings,  his  atonement,  and  in  a  word  to  his  whole  work  of  redemp 
tion.  Where  are  the  types  of  Satan,  and  of  his  coadjutors,  the  Antichrists 
of  the  Christian  period,  to  be  found  in  the  Jewish  ritual?  Hengstenberg 
appeals  to  2  Thess.  2:  3,  and  avers  that  this  is  built  upon  Daniel.  I  accede  ; 
but  only  so  far  as  to  recognize  a  similarity  of  description  in  a  case  where 
there  is  similarity  of  character  and  of  action.  What  does  one  need  more 
to  satisfy  himself  of  such  a  usage  among  the  N.  Test,  writers,  than  to  turn 
to  Matt.  2:  15,  18,  23,  and  compare  these  passages  with  the  original  He 
brew  ?  The  riA/^oxnt;  of  the  N.  Test,  is  far  enough  from  being  always  a 
fulfilment  of  what  is  strictly  prediction.  From  its  very  nature,  a  vnuvoia 
must  always  be  merely  a  matter  of  guessing ;  for  what  language  does  not 
of  itself  speak,  can  only  be  guessed  at.  But  how  can  we  accede  to  a  prin 
ciple  of  interpretation  so  hazardous  as  this,  and  specially  so  indefinite  and 
in  fact  undefinable? 

(2)  The  four  dynasties,  whatever   they  are,  perish  before  the  Messianic 


CHAP.  VII.  8.  EXCURSUS  ON  THE  FOURTH  BEAST.  207 

kingdom  is  introduced.  Thus  is  it  represented  in  2:  44,  45.  7:  11,  12,  22, 
26,  27.  8:  20 — 25.  11:  45.  This  is  of  itself  so  plain,  and  so  conclusive, 
that  it  would  alone  be  sufficient  to  decide  that  the  fourth  kingdom  cannot 
be  Roman. 

(3)  It  lies  upon  the  face  of  all  the  prophecies  in  this  book,  that  the  Mes 
sianic  kingdom  is  their  ultimatum.     What  will  befall  the  Hebrews  before 
this  is  introduced,  is  evidently  the  object  which  the  prophet  has  in  view  to 
declare.     But  here,  however,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  it  is  not  at  all  his 
object,  to  give  a  minute  civil  history  of  all  the   Jewish  affairs,  but  only  to 
touch  summarily  on  the  most  distressing  of  their  trials.     Under  Antiochus 
they  were  to  suffer  even  worse  things,  in  some  respects,  than  they  had  done 
under  Nebuchadnezzar.     Thus  much  disclosed,  he  passes  over  the  interim, 
and  touches  upon  the  introduction  of  the   new  kingdom.     Summarily  does 
he  describe  even  this,  but  he  strongly  asserts   its  perpetuity.     To  suppose 
Daniel  to  supply  the  place  which  John  has  filled  in  the  Apocalypse,  and  to 
go  beyond  the  simple  generic  views  that  I  have  suggested,  would  be  to  ap 
propriate  to  an  O.  Test,  writer  all  the  views  and  feelings   and   knowledge 
of  a  Christian  writer.     The  same  spirit  Daniel  doubtless  had.     But  he  did 
not  move  in  the  same  circle  of  action,  nor  did  he  address  the  same  classes 
of  readers. 

(4)  The  difficulties  that  lie  in  the  way  of  acknowledging  the  fourth  dy 
nasty  to  be  Roman )  not  only  appear  great,  but  to  me  they  seem  insuperable. 
Applied  to  the  Roman  dynasty,  what  mean  the  four  kingdoms   in  8:  22,  8. 
What  mean  the  ten  horns  in  7:  7,  20,  24  ?     And   the   ten   toes  in    2:  42  ? 
And  more  than  all,  what  means  it,  that  Antiochus  comes  from  the  midst  of 
the  ten  horns  ?     Haverniek  confesses  (Comm.  s.  570),  that  "as  yet  the  Ro 
man  history  gives  us   no  diagnostics   by  which   we  can   ascertain   the   ten 
horns."     What  then  is  to  be  done  ?     "  We  must   wait,"  says  he,  "  with  a 
believing  confidence,  that  we  shall  yet  see  a  time,  when  faith  will  be  turned 
into  vision,  and  thus  will  take  the  veil  from  our  eyes,  and  make  plain   the 
secrets   of  the   Lord."     Secrets  they  are  truly,  and  must  remain  so,  on  the 
ground  which  he  takes.     All  hope  of  any  intelligible  meaning  is   out  of 
question.     But  for  myself,  I  must  always  doubt  the  soundness  of  a  position, 
which  forces  us  to  conclusions  like  this,  in  regard  to  any  matter  of  predic 
tion. 

But  the  advocates  of  that  exegesis  which  assigns  the  Roman  dynasty  to 
the  fourth  beast  turn  the  tables  upon  us,  and  object  to  the  application  of 
this  symbol  to  the  dynasty  of  Alexander's  successors,  on  the  ground  that  in 
this  way  no  satisfactory  account  can  be  given,  either  of  the  ten  ki?igs,  or  of 
the  three  who  were  rooted  out  by  the  little  horn,  7:  7,  8,  20,  24.  Candor 
requires  us  to  say,  that  this  may  be  reasonably  demanded  of  those  who  re 
ject  the  application  of  what  is  said  concerning  the  fourth  dynasty  to  Rome, 
because  they  explain  the  prediction  as  applicable  to  a  dynasty  which  ex 
isted  and  came  to  an  end  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  Now  as  such  a  dy 
nasty  belongs  to  the  history  of  the  past,  some  probable  application  of  the 
prophecy  to  it  should  be  pointed  out  by  those  who  decline  the  interpreta 
tion  of  Hengstenberg,  if  they  expect  to  make  good  their  position.  This, 
as  I  apprehend  the  matter,  is  what  may  be  done. 

I  must,  first  of  all,  ask  the  particular  attention  of  the  reader  to  what  has 
already  been  intimated  and  explained,  viz.  that  Daniel  does  not  undertake 


208  CHAP.  VII.  8.  EXCURSUS  ON  THE  FOURTH  BEAST. 

to  write  universal  history,  nor  even  the  particular  history  of  the  empires 
which  he  actually  brings  into  view,  but  only  describes  such  occurrences  or 
personages  as  come  in  contact  and  conflict  with  the  Jews,  mostly  to  their 
harm  and  danger.  The  rapid  outline  in  7:  4 — 8  is  proof  of  this  ;  and  like 
to  this  are  the  passages  in  chap.  ii.  viii.,  and  also  xi.,  with  the  exception  of 
the  Syrian  kingdom,  (the  king  of  the  north),  and  particularly  that  of  Anti- 
ochus  Epiphanes,  11:  21  seq.  The  ten  kings  belong  to  the  fourth  beast,  as 
all  the  passages  in  chap.  vii.  show,  and  the  little  horn  comes  from  the  midst 
of  the  ten,  vs.  8,  20,  24.  But  in  8:  8,  9,  the  little  horn  is  expressly  said  to 
come  out  of  one  of  the  four  great  divisions  of  Alexander's  kingdom.  This 
then  .shows,  that  the  generality  of  the  dynasty  as  a  whole  is  dismissed  by 
the  writer  after  merely  touching  upon  it,  and  that  he  turns  his  attention 
only  to  that  part  of  it  which  is  annoying  and  terrible  to  the  Jews.  That 
the  little  horn  means  Antiochus  may,  after  all  that  has  been  said,  be  taken 
for  granted  ;  and  as  he  was  a  Syrian,  so  were  the  ten  kings  Syrians,  whom 
he  succeeded,  inasmuch  as  he  came  from  the  midst  of  them.  We  have  then 
simply  to  inquire,  whether  there  were  ten  kings  who  actually  preceded 
him  in  this  dynasty.  This  inquiry  seems  not  to  be  difficult. 


1.  Seloucus  I.  Nicator. 

2.  Antiochns  I.  Soler. 

3.  Antiochus  II.  Theos. 

4.  Seleucus  II.  Callinicus. 

5.  Seleucus  III.  Ceraunus. 

6.  Antiochus  III.  the  Great. 


7.  Seleucus  IV.  Philopator. 

8.  Heliodorus. 

9.  Ptolemy  IV.  Philometor. 

10.  Demetrius  I. 

11.  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 


All  of  these  are  unquestionable,  excepting  8,  9,  and  10.  *  These,'  says 
Hengstenberg  (s.  208),  'were  mere  pretenders  to  the  throne,  and  nothing 
more  ;  whereas  the  text  requires  that  they  should  be  actual  kings,  and  be 
dethroned.'  I  doubt  whether  his  demand  is  not  somewhat  too  strenuous 
here  ;  at  least  a  comparison  with  Rev.  17:  12  would  not  favor  a  construc 
tion  so  rigid.  But  be  it  so  ;  we  will  not  decline  to  answer  even  the  rigid 
demand  which  he  makes.  Appian  testifies  (De  Reb.  Syr.  c.  45),  that  Se 
leucus  Philopator,  when  king,  was  destroyed  by  the  conspiracy  of  Heliodo 
rus.  In  the  same  passage  he  says,  that  Eumenes  and  Attalus,  kings  of 
Pergamus,  in  conjunction  with  Antiochus,  and  at  his  solicitation,  deposed 
Heliodorus,  «$  rt]v  ixyz^v  (3ia£optvov,  who  had  seized  by  violence  upon  the 
government.  The  simple  history  is  this  :  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  son  of  Anti 
ochus  the  Great,  and  brother  of  king  Seleucus  Philopator  (who  was  de 
stroyed  by  Heliodorus),  had,  for  some  years,  been  sent  as  a  hostage  by  his 
father  to  Rome,  and  on  his  return,  (being  recalled  by  Seleucus  his  brother, 
who  sent  his  own  son  Demetrius  to  supply  his  place),  while  at  Athens,  he 
heard  of  all  that  Heliodorus  had  done,  and  then  visiting  Attalus  and  Eu 
menes,  on  his  way  home,  he  persuaded  them  to  assist  him.  Such  was  their 
interposition,  that  all  other  claims  to  the  throne  were  silenced,  and  the  par 
ties  awed  into  submission,  without  any  bloodshed  in  the  way  of  contest.  In 
respect  to  Heliodorus,  he  was  doubtless  punished  as  a  rebel.  But  still  he  had 
occupied  the  throne  ;  he  was  "  rooted  out"  from  it  by  Antiochus,  or  (to  use 
the  language  of  7:  20)  "  he  fell  before  him." 

The  second  of  the  three  kings,  "  who  were  humbled"  (7:  24),  appears  to 
be  Ptolemy  IV.  king  of  Egypt.  His  mother,  named  Cleopatra,  being  guar- 


CHAP.  VII.  8.  EXCURSUS  ON  THE  FOURTH  BEAST.  209 

dian  of  this  young  child  who  \vas  heir  to  the  throne  of  Egypt,  on  the  death 
of  Seleueus  Philopator,  claimed  the  throne  of  Syria  in  behalf  of  her  son. 
She  was  the  sifter  of  Philopator,  as  also  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  all  three 
being  children  of  Antiochus  the  Great.  She  claimed  Palestine  and  Phe- 
nicia  as  the  dower  pledged  to  her  by  her  father,  when  she  was  married  to 
Ptolemy  Epiphanes  the  king  of  Egypt.  When  her  brother  Seleueus  was 
assassinated  by  Heliodorus,  she,  as  already  intimated,  ambitious  of  her  son's 
promotion,  laid  claim  to  the  throne  of  Syria  for  him.  We  have  no  history 
of  what  was  done  to  carry  through  her  designs  ;  for,  unhappily,  all  the  par 
ticular  histories  of  that  period  which  are  now  extant,  are  only  a  few  frag 
ments.  But  that  she  succeeded  in  forming  a  party  in  favor  of  her  young 
son,  Ptolemy  IV.  Philometor,  seems  to  be  a  matter  of  fact ;  and  also,  that 
he  had  an  actual  investiture  of  the  kingly  office  over  Syria.  Thus  in  1 
Mace.  11:  13,  it  is  said  of  the  prince  in  question  :  "  And  Ptolemy  entered 
into  Antioch,  and  put  two  crowns  upon  his  head,  that  of  Asia  and  of  Egypt." 
The  Asia  named  here  undoubtedly  means  the  Syrian  empire,  inasmuch  as 
Ptolemy  was  now  in  its  capital  (Antioch).  In  Polybius'  Reliquiae,  XL.  12, 
this  same  prince  is  named  "  Ptolemy,  6  TJJS  2vqiui;  [x«t  Alyinnov]  /^xtfttauc, 
i.  e.  king  of  Syria"  [and  Egypt],  the  latter  words  included  in  brackets  be 
ing  of  somewhat  doubtful  authority.  There  is  no  good  ground  of  doubt, 
however,  that  the  Ptolemy  in  question  is  the  one  here  named.  It  would 
seem,  then,  since  it  is  certain  that  Antiochus  got  the  better  of  all  his  an 
tagonists,  that  Ptolemy  was  "  humbled  as  to  his  claim  upon  the  throne  of 
Syria. 

But  who  is  the  third  king,  that  Antiochus  rooted  out  ?  I  cannot  hesitate 
to  say,  that,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  reference  is  made  to  Demetrius  I.  Soter,  as 
he  was  afterwards  named.  He  was  the  son  of  Seleueus  Philopator,  and  of 
course  the  nephew  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  By  right,  i.  e.  by  the  estab 
lished  custom  of  regal  succession  in  the  monarchies  of  the  East  in  general, 
the  inheritance  of  the  throne  belonged  to  Demetrius,  as  soon  as  his  father 
was  dead.  He  was  its  rightful  occupant.  But  Antiochus  did  not  recall 
him  from  Rome,  whither  he  had  gone  as  a  hostage,  in  order  to  redeem  An 
tiochus  himself  from  that  condition.  The  Roman  Senate  could  have  no 
inducement  to  send  him  back.  They  kept  him  as  a  security  of  Antiochus' 
good  behaviour ;  for  in  case  the  latter  gave  umbrage  to  the  Roman  power, 
they  could  set  up  Demetrius  and  urge  his  lawful  claims  against  Antiochus ; 
which  would  be  very  likely  to  defeat  and  overthrow  him.  Thus,  by  the 
collusion  of  Antiochus  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  crafty  policy  of  the  Ro 
mans  on  the  other,  Demetrius  was  obliged  to  forego  his  rights  as  a  prince, 
until  after  the  death  of  Antiochus  and  his  son.  In  this  way  did  Antiochus 
defeat  the  claims  of  three  kings,  and  "  humble  them,"  7:  24.  The  two  for 
mer  of  them  he  actually  dethroned,  the  latter  he  excluded  from  the  right 
ful  occupation  of  the  throne,  at  least  so  long  as  he  and  his  son  lived.  He 
did  indeed  not  actually  dethrone  Demetrius,  but  he  kept  him  out  of  his 
throne.  All  this  agrees  well  with  7:  8,  20,  24,  and  is  sufficient  to  answer 
the  demands  of  interpretation.  He  who  has  a  right  to  a  throne,  and  is  kept 
from  it  either  by  the  craft  or  violence  of  another,  is  humbled  as  to  his  pre 
tensions,  and  fallen  as  to  his  purpose.  All  three  were  rooted  out  (7:  8), 
as  to  their  kingly  office,  and  Antiochus  remained  the  sole  and  triumphant 
king  of  Syria.  That  all  this  should  be  done  by  craft,  and  flattery,  and  dex- 

16* 


210  CHAP.  VII.  8.  EXCURSUS  ON  THE  FOURTH  BEAST. 

terous  management,  without  any  open  war  or  contention,  is  indeed  some 
what  strange;  but  by^no  means  impossible.  See  how  graphically  Anti- 
ochus  is  characterized  in  8:  23,  24,  but  specially  in  11:  21,  23,  24,  25,  27, 
30,  32.  "  He  shall  come  in  peaceably,  and  obtain  the  kingdom  by  flatter 
ies,"  says  Daniel,  11:  21.  One  can  hardly  wonder  that  Porphyry  was 
so  struck  with  this  and  other  like  passages,  as  to  affirm  that  it  must  have 
been  written  post  evenfum.  But  when  Porphyry,  and  others  since  his  time, 
suggest  that  Ptolemy  VI.  and  Ptolemy  VII.  kings  of  Egypt,  and  Artaxias 
king  of  Armenia,  are  the  three  kings  that  were  humbled,  it  seems  to  be  a 
mistake.  It  is  true  that  Antiochus  gained  victories  over  them  in  contest; 
but  this  was  after  some  years,  when  he  had  become  established  in  power. 
I  understand  7:  8,  20,  24,  as  relating  to  what  Antiochus  did,  in  order  to 
secure  the  throne  to  himself;  for  this  is  the  natural  implication  of  the  pas- 


What  now  can  be  done  with  these  ten  kings,  and  the  three  kings  humbled 
by  Antiochus,  if  the  whole  be  referred  to  the  Roman  dynasty,  no  one  can 
tell  us.  Hengstenberg  and  Havernick  give  up  the  attempt,  and  resolve 
the  whole  into  a  prediction  of  an  Antichrist  yet  future,  and  of  ten  future 
Roman  kings  or  kingdoms,  three  of  which  are  to  be  humbled  by  Antichrist ; 
and  they  bid  us  to  wait  with  patience,  in  expectation  that  dies  indicabit,  i.  e. 
future  events  will  make  plain  what  is  now  dark  and  unintelligible.  But  I 
cannot  think  that  a  prophetic  revelation  is  constructed  of  such  material.  A 
prophecy  addressed  to  any  class  of  men,  must  needs  have  at  least  some  re 
spect  to  the  information  of  those  for  whom  it  is  uttered,  and  to  whom  it  is 
addressed.  But  for  what  valuable  purpose  a  prediction  altogether  unin 
telligible  can  be  uttered  or  written,  it  would  be  difficult  to  form  any  satis 
factory  conception. 

Finally,  whatever  may  be  the  difference  of  opinion  about  the  fourth  beast, 
and  the  dynasty  symbolized  by  it,  all  must  concede,  that  the  facts  respecting 
the  ten  kings  and  the  three  kings,  as  related  above,  are  at  least  very  singular 
and  striking.  Could  there  be  such  a  coincidence  betweeti  them  and  Daniel's 
prediction,  unless  they  in  reality  are  connected  together  ?  We  may  in 
deed  concede  the  possibility  of  it ;  but  can  any  one  well  defend  the  proba 
bility  of  it?  After  all  that  can  be  said  on  this  subject,  the  simple  but  con 
spicuous  truth,  that  the  Messiah's  kingdom  FOLLOWS  the  ruin  of  the  four 
dynasties,  renders  the  application  of  the  symbol  of  the  fourth  beast  to  the 
Roman  dynasty  altogether  improbable,  nay  exegetically  impossible. 

Let  those  who  are  deeply  versed  in  the  prophecies  of  the  O.  Test.,  ask 
the  question  :  Do  any  O.  Test,  predictions,  in  any  other  case  whatever, 
describe  the  apostasies  and  the  heresies  that  will  spring  up  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Christian  church  ?  Unless  the  prediction  in  Dan.  vii.  is  of  this  nature, 
no  example,  so  far  as  I  know,  can  be  found.  It  is  not  impossible,  I  con 
cede,  that  Dan.  vii.  may  be  unique  in  its  kind  ;  but  unless  some  very  good 
reason  for  a  prophecy  of  such  a  character  can  be  given,  and  some  impor 
tant  object  to  be  accomplished  by  it  pointed  out,  I  must  regard  it  as  alto 
gether  improbable. 

On  the  ground  that  the  views  above  given  are  reasonable  and  well  sup 
ported  by  the  laws  of  interpretation,  our  future  progress  in  the  exposition  of 
the  book  before  us,  will  be  greatly  facilitated.  As  these  views  appear  to 
me  just  and  well  grounded,  I  must  of  course  avail  myself  of  them,  and  I 


CHAP.  VII.  9.  211 

shall  often  recur  to  them  as  matters  no  longer  in  need  of  a  new  defence,  or 
to  be  regarded  as  mere  conjectures. 

In  reviewing  this  whole  subject,  it  seems  plain  to  my  mind,  that  Jerome, 
and  others  of  later  times,  who  refer  the  little,  horn  in  chap.  vii.  to  Antichrist, 
were  led  to  do  so  by  the  language  of  the  N.  Test,  which  in  several  in 
stances  is  borrowed  from  Daniel,  and  applied  to  objects  belonging  to  the 
period  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  That  like  events,  and  like  charac 
ters  of  this  period,  should  be  described  in  language  borrowed  as  it  were 
from  ancient  prototypes,  is  very  natural,  and  is  indeed  what  is  often  done 
in  all  parts  of  the  New  Testament.  But  it  requires  great  care  not  to  con 
found  prediction  with  mere  cases  of  resemblance ;  and  it  is  a  work  not  yet 
fully  done,  to  separate  the  one  from  the  other,  and  satisfy  the  intelligent 
inquirer  where  the  metes  and  bounds  actually  are  between  the  two  things. 
This  is  a  work,  moreover,  which,  if  well  done,  would  dispense  with  any 
further  necessity  of  resort  to  vnovoia,  in  order  to  elicit  the  true  meaning 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Those  (and  they  are  not  a  few)  who  find  the  Pope 
in  the  little  horn,  go  still  further  than  Jerome,  who,  although  the  Roman 
bishop  in  his  day  began  sensibly  to  elevate  himself,  appears  never  to  have 
thought  of  such  an  application. 

(9)1  continued  looking,  until  thrones  were  placed,  and  the  Ancient  of  Days  was 
seated,  whose  garment  was  white  as  snow,  and  the  hair  of  his  head  like  pure  wool, 
flames  of  fire  were  his  throne,  his  wheels  a  burning  flame. 

I  continued  looking  implies,  of  course,  some  interval  of  time,  during 
which  the  scenes  of  the  vision  are  shifted.  —  "ft&^S  »  is  irreg.  plur.  form 
of  Ntns ,  the  final  K  going  into  1  movable  ;  the  form  in  the  text  is  suff. ; 
for  a  fern  plur.,  see  §  31.  3.  The  root  XD3  means  to  cover,  and  the 
noun  therefore  designates  a  seat  covered  or  decked  with  cloth,  or  other 
material,  and  so  a  seat  for  a  king  or  chief  judge,  etc.  The  T  here  is  a 
mere  euphonic  substitute  for  the  Dagh.  f.  in  the  original  form  NS3 ,  see 
Lex.  But  why  the  plural?  Plainly  it  attaches  itself  to  the  idea  of  a 
heavenly  court  or  consessus,  where  the  supreme  Lord  and  Judge  is  con 
templated  as  being  attended  by  his  subordinate  ministers.  As  to  attend" 
ants,  in  such  a  case,  of  the  highest  rank,  comp.  Rev.  1:  4.  8:  2.  Isa.  6:  2. 
1  Tim.  5:  21.  In  regard  to  the  enthronization  of  them,  see  Rev.  4:  4. 
The  most  distinguished  ministers  of  the  Supreme  Tribunal  are  seated,  as 
well  as  the  Supreme  Judge.  In  the  N.  Test.,  Christians  are  represented 
as  sharing  in  the  like  solemnities,  1  Cor.  6:  2.  Matt.  19:  28.  Luke  22: 
30.  Rev.  3:  21.  Not  improbably  such  expressions  as  "Let  us  make 
man  in  our  image ;"  "  Let  us  go  down  and  see  ;"  "  Who  will  go  for  us  T 
take  their  plural  form  from  such  views  of  the  heavenly  Consessus.  The 
sum  of  the  matter  is,  that  the  prophet  presents  the  Supreme  Lord  and 
Judge  to  our  view  by  imagery  borrowed  from  earthly  sovereigns,  i.  e.  as 
having  all  the  insignia  of  preeminence  and  supremacy  around  him.  — 


212  CHAP.  VII.  9. 


either  Part.  pass,  for  verb,  p.  51.  2,  or  more  probably  it  may  be 
3  pi.  Perf.  Peal  used  impersonally,  §  49.  3.  b,  which  comes  to  the  same 
sense.  It  refers  to  the  action  of  depositing  and  putting  in  place  a  seat 
(throne),  which  is  contemplated  as  being  brought  in  and  adjusted  by  ap 
propriate  attendants  on  the  divine  Majesty.  —  The  Ancient  of  Days  is 
an  expression  of  a  superlative  cast,  §  58.  2,  meaning  He  who  is  most  an 
cient  as  to  days,  the  Gen.  noun  designating  the  kind  of  quality  belonging 
to  the  adjective  which  precedes.  The  expression  is  equivalent  to  the 
French  U  Eternel,  Eng.  the  Eternal.  —  srn  ,  Part,  pass.,  was  seated,  or 
Peal  Praet.  (§  12.  2.  1)  =  sat.  God  is  not  specifically  named  here,  but 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  is  meant.  The  suppression  of  his  proper 
name  seems  to  be  an  indication  of  reverence  toward  the  ovo^ia  dcpwvtirov, 
which  was  so  customary  among  the  Jews  ;  see  the  like  suppression  in 
Gen.  32:  29.  Job  24:  23  (his  eyes  for  God).  Isa.  17.  13.  Ecc.  9:  9.  Apoc. 
1:  4,  but  an  exact  likeness  of  the  case  before  us  is  in  Rev.  4:  2.  The 
attitude  of  sitting  is  appropriate  to  the  dignity  of  the  Judge,  Isa.  6:  1. 
Ps.  9:  5  (4),  8  (7).'  122:  5.  The  Latins  say  :  Judices  sedent,  in  order  to 
designate  the  act  of  deciding  on  the  part  of  the  judges  ;  and  in  like  man 
ner  the  Greeks.  —  Whiter  than  snow,  in  accordance  with  the  usual  cus 
tom  of  the  Orientals,  white  garments  being  indicative  of  high  station  ; 
e.  g.  in  Heb.,  n'n'in  ,  the  clothed  in  white,  means  nobles.  In  case  of  a 
judge,  the  white  garment  is  an  indication  both  of  dignity  and  purity. 
Comp.  in  the  Apoc.  3:  5.  4:  4.  6:  11.  7:  9.  19:  8.  —  inn  is  an  adj.,  §  28. 
5.  7.  —  The  hair  of  his  head  was  like  pure  wool,  i.  e.  very  white.  As  the 
Ancient  of  Days  is  here  described,  the  idea  of  locks  entirely  white  would 
not  be  inapposite;  but  in  Rev.  1:  14  we  find  the  same  description  of  the 
risen  Saviour,  where  this  view  of  the  matter  would  be  inapposite.  On 
the  whole,  therefore,  I  must  incline  to  that  view,  which  attributes  the 
whiteness  to  exceeding  splendor,  like  the  white  heat  of  a  metal  in  the  fire. 
The  sequel  shows  that  the  divine  Majesty  is  surrounded  by  fire.  —  The 
thrones  were  flames,  i.  e.  they  were  exceedingly  radiant  and  splendid.  — 
itt-fes&a,  pi.  of  baba,  his  wheels,  implies  that  the  throne  on  which  the  An 
cient  of  Days  is  seated,  is  placed  upon  wheels,  all  which  indicates  rapid 
movement  and  universal  presence,  so  to  speak.  See  the  image  at  full 
length,  in  Ezek.  1:  15  seq.  10:  13  seq.  For  the  imagery  of  fire  as  ac 
companying  the  presence  of  the  Deity,  see  Ex.  19:  18.  20:  18.  3:  2. 
Deut,  4:  24.  9:  3.  Ps.  18:  9  (8).  50:  3.  Ezek.  1:  4,  13,  27.  Heb.  12: 
29.  Rev.  4:  5.  Eire  may  be  the  symbol  of  splendor,  or  it  may  indicate 
a  destroying  power,  or  it  may  designate  both.  In  the  present  case  I 
should  incline  to  the  last  view  ;  for  the  excision  of  the  beast  follows. 


CHAP.  VII.  10,  11.  213 

(10)  A  stream  of  fire  issued  forth  and  went  out  from  his  presence;  thousand  thou 
sands  ministered  to  him,  and  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  stood  before  him  ; 
the  tribunal  was  seated,  and  the  books  were  opened. 


x  ,  a  Hebraizing  form,  instead  of  the  normal  "ps^x  ;  see  the  like 
in  Ezra  4:  13,  o^sbig  .  —  i2"i  =  ni2n  ,  sing,  in  form,  although  indicating 
ten  thousand,  =  myriad.  —  "0?"i,  fern.  plur.  of  the  same.  —  iwip'j,  stood, 
were  standing,  denoting  continued  action,  like  the  Heb.  Imperf.  —  Xi'i'n 
is  abstract  for  concrete,  i.  e.  tribunal  or  judgment  for  judges.  —  irr\  is 
repeated  here,  in  order  to  resume  the  sentence,  begun  with  a  design  to 
indicate  the  process  of  trial.  —  Books  were  opened,  i.  e.  the  archives  of 
heaven,  where  all  of  men's  actions  are  recorded;  comp.  Rev.  20:  12. 
Dan.  12:  1.  The  scene  here  presented  to  view  is  very  magnificent. 
The  resplendence  of  the  objects,  the  numbers  present,  and  the  solemnity 
that  rests  on  the  whole,  are  circumstances  well  adapted  to  strike  the 
mind  with  force. 

(  11  )  I  continued  looking,  then,  because  of  the  sound  of  the  great  words  which  the 
horn  spake.  —  I  continued  looking,  until  the  beast  was  slain,  and  its  body  destroyed, 
and  it  was  committed  to  the  flaming  fire. 

The  repetition  of  n^n  rrrn  is  here  rather  embarrassing  to  the  clear 
run  of  the  sentence.  But  I  regard  this  repetition  as  a  mere  resumption 
of  the  sentence  begun,  and  momentarily  suspended  for  the  introduction 
of  other  matter.  The  meaning  seems  to  be,  that  he  continued  looking, 
until  he  saw  the  consequences  of  the  haughty  words  which  the  beast  had 
spoken.  —  rib^ap  and  ra*>rn  ,  fern.  Parts.,  having  KPi'nri  for  their  subject 
respectively,  p.  51.  2.  The  destruction  of  the  beast,  or  little  horn  (An- 
tiochus),  seems  to  be  regarded  as  an  effectual  breaking  down  of  the 
fourth  dynasty  in  the  sense  which  is  here  attached  to  it,  viz.  that  of  an 
annoying  power.  Certain  it  is,  that  Daniel  does  not  pursue  the  history 
of  the  Syrian  kings  beyond  Antiochus.  But  the  son  of  that  king,  and 
also  other  subsequent  kings  of  Syria,  annoyed  the  Jews  not  unfrequently, 
and  at  times  very  seriously.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  Daniel's  ultima 
tum  in  his  predictions,  so  far  as  the  four  great  dynasties  are  concerned, 
is  the  capture  and  desolation  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  temple  —  an  event 
like  to  that  which  preceded  the  Babylonish  exile.  As  such  an  event 
took  place  under  Antiochus,  the  prophet's  design  is  completed  when  he 
has  described  it.  The  minutiae  of  subsequent  history  are  out  of  his  cir 
cle  of  vision,  and  aside  from  his  design. 

An  inquiry  may  here  arise,  whether  the  writer  merely  expresses  in 
strong  language  the  temporal  destruction  of  the  fourth  beast,  or  whether 
he  designs  more  than  this,  by  saying  that  it  was  committed  to  the  flaming 


214  CHAP.  VII.  12. 

fire.  The  likeness  is  very  exact  between  the  assertion  here,  and  that  iii 
Rev.  19:  20.  20:  10,  in  respect  to  the  beast,  the  false  prophet,  and  Satan. 
Both  again  are  closely  allied  with  Isa.  66:  24.  Lengerke  contends  strenu 
ously,  that  the  Hebrews  indicated  future  punishment  in  Skeol  by  such  pas 
sages.  It  would  seem  that  they  attached  a  certain  degree  of  sensitiveness 
to  a  dead  body,  and  supposed  that  the  perpetual  burning  of  it  was  adapted 
to  torment  it  in  a  high  degree.  The  book  of  Enoch,  (probably  written 
near  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era),  often  repeats  such  views ; 
e.  g.  10:  16,  17.  21:  3—6.  89:  33—37.  99:  5,  7.  103:  5.  105:  21  seq.,  etc! 
Like  Isa.  66:  24,  the  N.  Test,  seems  to  hold  fast  the  imagery  both  of  the 
fire  and  of  the  worm  which  devours  dead  bodies  ;  see  Matt.  5:  22.  18:  9. 
Mark  9:  43 — 48.  See  also  Sirach  7:  17,  and  comp.  Judith,  16:  17.  The 
original  image  of  fire,  in  such  cases,  or  of  fire  and  brimstone  (as  in  some 
others),  seems  to  have  its  basis  in  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah. 
Sheol  was  placed  by  the  Hebrews  in  the  world  beneath,  see  Isa.  xiv. ;  as 
was  Tartarus  by  the  Greeks.  The  smoke,  flames,  and  sulphuric  odor  of 
volcanic  eruptions,  not  improbably  furnished  the  occasion  among  the 
Greeks  of  the  particular  imagery  in  question.  No  images  more  dreadful 
could  be  found  or  imagined.  Lengerke  even  strenuously  urges,  that  the 
Jews  regarded  future  penalties  as  eternal ;  which  seems,  in  fact,  to  be  much 
strengthened  by  the  views  of  the  book  of  Enoch  in  relation  to  the  subject, 
and  by  those  of  Josephus  and  Philo.  It  is  an  acknowledged  point,  that 
the  Greeks  regarded  a  part  of  Tartarus  as  the  perpetual  prison  of  a  portion 
of  peculiar  offenders.  The  idea  of  a  purgatory  they  also  had,  which  seems 
to  have  passed  from  the  Roman  to  the  Christian  priesthood  at  Rome,  during 
the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries.  Daniel  speaks  of  the  beast  as  committed  to 
the  flame  after  its  death;  which  looks  as  if  he  meant  to  designate  a,  punish 
ment  which  ensued  upon  the  death  of  the  body.  The  honorable  burning 
(instead  of  burying)  of  the  body,  it  would  not  be  compatible  with  his  design 
here  to  mention. 

(12)  And  as  to  the  rest  of  the  beasts  their  power  was  taken  away;  but  continu 
ance  in  life  was  assigned  to  them,  for  a  season  and  time. 

As  to  the  rest  of  the  beasts,  a  clause  in  tbe  Norn,  absolute ;  as  often 
elsewhere,  e.  g.  1:  17.  2:  29,  30,  32.  3:  22.  5:  18,  etc.  — C.  B.  Michaelis 
and  Rosenmiiller  interpret  this  of  other  beasts  in  general,  existing  at  the 
time  when  the  fourth  beast  was  destroyed.  The  sense  is  well  enough ; 
but  the  philology  may  be  called  in  question.  The  writer  brings  four 
beasts  into  view.  Of  the  last  one  only  he  has  just  related  the  destruc 
tion.  When  he  now  says  tbe  rest,  what  can  be  meant  except  the  other 
three  ?  The  solution  of  the  difficulty  which  this  parenthetic  verse  occa 
sions,  must  be  looked  for  in  another  way.  If  the  reader  will  cast  his 
eye  upon  the  preceding  context,  he  will  see  that  nothing  is  there  said  of 
the  destruction  either  of  the  first,  second,  or  third  beast.  Having  now 
given  in  strong  colors  a  sketch  of  the  destruction  of  the  fourth  beast,  this 
seems  naturally  to  suggest,  that  something  should  be  said  in  regard  to 
the  disappearance  of  the  others.  <  Others/  he  goes  on  then  to  say, 


CHAP.  VII.  13.  215 

*  shared  the  like  destiny,  but  not  so  speedily  as  did  the  little  horn.  They 
continued  during  the  period  allotted  by  Heaven  to  each.'  —  T^TJ  > 
Aph.  3  plur.  of  aO3»  ,  impers.  for  pass.  §  49.  3.  2.  —  linp^d  ,  the  do 
minion  of  them,  having  a  pron.  pi.  masc.  for  the  suffix  ;  and  this  re 
lates  plainly  to  kings,  i.  e.  kingdoms  symbolized  by  the  beasts  ;  in  other 
words,  the  pronoun  accords  with  what  the  beasts  symbolize.  —  •"iS"!**  >  lit. 
prolongation,  and  "p^na  designates  the  periods  in  which  the  three  empires 
flourished.  The  prolongation  in  this  case  seems  evidently  in  the  way  of 
contrast  to  the  speedy  destruction  of  the  little  horn,  which  comes,  as  the 
writer  views  the  matter,  to  be  the  principal  representative  of  the  fourth 
dynasty.  The  reign  of  Antiochus  was,  in  fact,  only  about  11  years.  The 
prolongation  vfdsjor  a  season  and  time.  —  "JET  seems  to  come  near  to  the 
meaning  of  our  word  season,  i.  e.  opportune  time  ;  while  ~py  is  a  dejined 
or  appointed  period.  That  the  phrase  is  not  intended  to  be  minutely 
detinue  here,  must  be  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  three  dif 
ferent  dynasties  were  of  very  unequal  duration,  and  of  course  a  definite 
limitation  of  time,  and  the  same  limitation,  could  not  be  assigned  to  all 
alike.  The  meaning  plainly  is  :  *  For  a  period  such  as  Heaven  decreed. 
Some  remained  ibr  one  time,  and  some  for  another  time.  All  was  di 
rected  by  the  power  and  will  of  God.'  The  power  or  dominion  of  the 
beasts  is  here  explicitly  shown,  by  v.  12,  to  have  been  destroyed,  at  the 
time  when  the  fourth  beast  was  condemned  and  destroyed.  How  all  this 
can  consist  with  the  Roman  history,  it  would  be  difficult  to  show.  But 
the  endless  variations  of  opinion  concerning  the  passage,  indicate  that  the 
application  of  the  whole  to  Antichrist  or  to  the  Pope,  has  been  the  occa 
sion  ot  the  difficulty  about  it.  .Daniel's  lour  dynasties  are  not  exactly  dynas 
ties  of  civil  history,  but  dynasties  of  prophecy.  The  minute  circumstances 
that  attended  them,  when  beginning  or  ending,  are  not  detailed,  with  the 
exception  of  Antiochus  Kpiphanes  in  ch.  xi. 

Having  thus  disposed  ot  the  tour  dynasties,  the  writer  next  gives  us  a 
view  of  the  glorious  kingdom,  which  is  the  ultimate  object  of  his  pro 
phetic  contemplation. 

(13)  1  continued  to  look  during  the  visions  of  the  night,  and  behold!  with  the 
clouds,  of  heaven  one  like  a  !Son  of  Man  came,  and  he  approached  the  Ancient  of  Days, 
and  they  brought  him  near  before  him. 


repeated  from  v.  2  above.  The  plural  is  used  in  refer 
ence  to  a  series  or  succession  of  visions.  —  es  ,  lit.  with,  it  designates  the 
idea  of  accompanying,  i.  e.  the  Son  of  Man  came  accompanied  or  surrounded 
by  clouds.  The  idea  doubtless  is  that  of  being  enthroned  on  a  moving 
cloud,  and  advancing  with  it;  so  in  Rev.  1:  7.  14:  14.  So  Jehovah,  in 


216  CHAP.  VII.  13. 

Isa.  19:  1.   Ps.  104:  3.  Nah.  1:  3.     The  Sibylline  Oracles  have  para 
phrased  this  passage  not  unaptly  : 


Zei  ev  v£(f>£.7/  atpiTov  utytToc  avTo£ 
ev  66^ri  Xfucrrdf  avv  afivfiovai  u 


On  this  account  the  Rabbins  name  the  Messiah  ^J§  ==  nubivagus,  or  ^35  13 
son  of  the  cloud.  Son  of  Man  means  a  human  being,  i.  e.  a  being  in  hu 
man  form,  apparently  a  man.  In  Ezekiel,  it  is  the  usual  appellation  of 
the  prophet  himself.  The  phrase  is  used  in  this  way,  however,  only  in 
poetic  and  prophetic  language.  The  symbols  of  all  the  four  dynasties 
that  precede,  are  ravenous  beasts  ;  as  they  might  appropriately  be.  But 
here  is  a  new  kingdom,  and  one  of  an  entirely  different  character.  It  is 
fitly  symbolized,  therefore,  by  an  intelligent  rational  being.  The  symbol 
here  is  not  of  a  people  or  nation,  as  some  of  the  ancients  interpreted  it, 
who  applied  it  to  Jews  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  Nor  is  it  the  holy 
part  of  the  Jewish  nation,  as  Paulus,  Jahn,  Wegsch  eider,  and  Baumgar- 
ten  Crusius  have  interpreted  it.  Rev.  12:  5  will  not  support  this  view, 
for  there  the  man-child  does  not  mean  Christians,  but  the  Messiah.  Por 
phyry  applied  it  to  Judas  Maccabaeus  ;  upon  which  Jerome  asks,  how 
Judas  came  with  the  clouds,  and  whether  his  kingdom  was  perpetual. 
The  sequel  plainly  points  to  the  king  Messiah.  Here  is  no  succession 
and  no  change  of  dynasty.  So,  moreover,  the  leading  Rabbies,  Jarchi, 
Saadias,  Jos.  Jachiades.  Even  the  book  of  Enoch  calls  him  Son  of  Man. 
Lengerke  himself  admits,  that  a  superhuman  nature  is  here  assigned  to 
him,  because  elsewhere  God  only  comes  in  the  clouds  ;  also  because  an 
gels  conduct  him  to  the  throne  of  God,  and  because  a  universal  and  per 
petual  kingdom  is  assigned  to  him.  Various  reasons  have  been  given, 
why  the  writer  employs  such  an  appellation  to  designate  the  new  king. 
The  matter,  however,  seems  after  all  to  be  quite  simple.  Prophecy  had 
declared  that  the  Messiah  would  be  a  son  of  David,  Isa.  11:  1.  Mic.  5:  1, 
et  al.  The  new  kingdom  is  on  earth  ;  Christ  is  to  appear,  and  act  as  the 
head  of  it;  and  to  do  this,  he  must  assume  a  human  form.  Such  a  form 
angels  were  wont  to  assume,  when  they  conversed  with  men.  If  we  sup 
pose,  moreover,  that  Daniel  in  vision  had  a  still  more  definite  idea  of  the 
person  and  work  of  the  Messiah,  the  name  Son  of  Man  might  be  employed 
by  him  in  reference  to  a  nature  which  was  adapted  to  suffer  and  die  ; 
comp.  Heb.  2:  14  —  18.  4:  15,  16.  At  all  events,  this  is  the  locus  classicus 
to  explain  the  appellation  Son  of  Man,  which  is  given  to  Christ  in  the 
N.  Test.,  and  which  he  very  often  applies  to  himself,  but  which  his  disci 
ples  rarely  indeed  employed  to  designate  him,  as  we  find  only  one  exam- 


CHAP.  VII.  14,15.  217 

pie,  Acts  7:  56.  It  designates  very  significantly  the  frail  and  suffering 
condition  of  Jesus  in  his  state  of  humiliation  ;  while  Son  of  God  has  ref 
erence  to  his  higher  and  more  exalted  nature.  Both  appellations  desig 
nate  one  and  the  same  person  ;  but  one  has  reference  to  one  aspect  of  that 
person,  and  the  other  to  another.  It  is  easy  to  see,  moreover,  that  while 
Son  of  Man,  in  the  Gospels,  designates  Christ  in  his  state  of  humiliation 
it  is  quite  remote  from  designating  anything  which  is  degrading.  A  ref 
erence  of  it  to  the  passage  before  us,  will  always  cast  appropriate  light 
upon  it.  —  In  'Wa'njsn ,  they  brought  him  near,  we  have  again  the  3d 
plur.  without  any  subject  expressed,  in  the  room  of  the  pass,  voice.  The 
idea  still  is,  that  he  was  conducted  to  the  throne  by  the  attendant  angels 
or  ministering  spirits. 

(14)  And  to  him  was  given  dominion,  and  honor,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people, 
nations,  and  tongues  should  serve  him  ;  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion, 
which  shall  not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom  one  which  shall  not  be  destroyed. 

•jab^  is  the  ruling  power  which  any  one  possesses,  the  right  to  rule  . 
lalbE  is  the  domain  over  which  one  rules.  —  -i^  refers  here  rather  to  the 
honor,  n^,  which  belongs  to  a  king,  than  the  mere  splendor  of  his  con 
dition.  —  The  everlasting  kingdom  is  in  contrast  with  other  perishable 
dynasties,  see  in  vs.  11,  12.  Comp.  also  2:  44.  4:  34.  7:  27,  and  the  lan 
guage  of  Gabriel  to  Mary,  Luke  1:  32,  33.  —  rrn3n,  Fut.  Peal,  with  the 
rough  enunciation  —  bsnnn,Ithpaal,fem.  The^,  which  is  the  subject, 
is  fern,  here,  and  =  one  which,  or  that  lohich. 

(15)  As  for  me  Daniel,  my  spirit  was  sorely  troubled  within  me,  and  the  visions 
of  the  night  terrified  me. 

n**i3nx  ,  3  fern.  Ithpeal,  TiTi  being  of  the  common  gender.  The  inx  (in 
stead  of  the  normal  nx  )  in  the  first  syllable,  is  Syriasm,  §  25.  2.  The 
word  may  mean  was  sick  ;  but  the  meaning  given  to  it  above  seems  here 
to  be  the  more  probable.  —  "<rn"i ,  my  spirit,  is  a  periphrasis  for  I,  but 
it  is  somewhat  more  intensive,  §  43.  1.  —  The  two  following  words  I 
have  translated  as  in  the  Nom.  abs. ;  which  indeed  best  suits  our  idiom. 
But  in  the  Hebrew,  they  are  in  apposition  with  Ti'n,  and  are  designed 
not  so  much  to  be  explicative  of  this  word,  as  to  designate  the  same  per 
sonage  intensively.  — .OJQ  =  ariaa ,  lit.  in  the  midst,  an  intensive  form 
of  3  in,  somewhat  like  our  within  instead  of  in, —  Wis,  with  n-  para- 
gogic,  like  nsab,  fTptx ,  etc.,  lit.  sheath  =  body.  That  is,  the  body  is  to 
the  soul,  what  the  sheath  is  to  the  sword.  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat. VII.  52)  calls 
it  the  sheath  (vagina)  of  the  soul ;  and  so  spake  a  philosopher  to  Alexan 
der  the  Great,  who  looked  with  contempt  upon  his  corporeal  deformity, 
(d'Herbelot,  Bib.  Orient,  p.  642).  Job  27:  8  seems  to  allude  to  the 

19 


218  CHAP.  VII.  16,  17. 

same  figurative  expression :  "  When  God  shall  draw  out  (extraxerit)  his 
soul,"  viz.  as  one  draws  out  a  sword  from  its  sheath.  Elsewhere  the 
body  is  the  dwelling  of  the  soul ;  the  temple  of  God's  Spirit,  etc.  The  Na- 
siraeans  call  it  robe  or  shirt ;  the  Rabbies,  a  garment.  One  idea  only  lies 
at  the  basis  of  all  these  figurative  expressions,  viz.  something  that  covers 
or  conceals  the  soul  which  dwells  within.  n;H3  occurs  nowhere  else 
in  the  Scriptures  ;  but  with  all  the  analogies  adduced  above  to  help  us, 
it  does  not  seem  difficult  to  explain  the  word  satisfactorily.  It  appears  to 
be  the  object  of  the  writer,  to  express  the  idea  of  internal  troubles,  while 
his  bodily  soundness  was  unimpaired.  —  It  should  be  noted,  moreover, 
that  all  this  is  presented  as  happening  to  him  in  vision,  or  while  the 
vision  continued ;  as  the  next  verse  clearly  shows.  The  trouble  that  he 
had,  seems  to  have  arisen  in  part  from  the  mournful  aspect  which  some  of 
the  visions  wore,  betokening  sorrow  to  his  people  and  kindred,  and  in 
part  from  being  as  yet  unable  distinctly  to  understand  the  entire  meaning 
of  the  visions.  This  last  circumstance  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  inquiries 
that  follow. 

(16)  I  drew  near  to  one  of  those  who  were  standing  by,  that  I  might  ask  of  him 
the  certainty  respecting  all  this  ;  and  he  told  me,  that,  he  would  explain  to  me  the 
meaning  of  the  things. 

N*72X£,  Part.  plur.  emph.  It  means  those  who  were  standing  in  the  at 
titude  of  ministering  servants  before  the  throne  of  the  Ancient  of  Days ; 
see  in  v.  10.  —  fns^ ,  of  or  from  him,  implies  asking  him  importunately. 
—  ^IZJBSI,  that  the  interpretation,  etc.  If  the  verb  in  the  Future  (now  at 
the  end  of  the  clause  (stood  immediately  connected  with  the  1 ,  there 
would  be  no  difficulty  in  rendering  the  *i  that,  or  so  that;  for  nothing  is  more 
common  than  such  a  meaning  of  i  at  the  beginning  of  an  apodosis.  But 
it  is  equally  true,  in  Hebrew  and  in  Chaldee,  that  when  nouns  intervene 
(as  here)  between  the  1  and  the  verb  Fut.,  the  same  meaning  be 
longs  to  the  whole  clause  as  if  the  verb  stood  at  the  beginning.  Winer 
has  given  but  an  imperfect  account  of  such  an  idiom,  in  §  44.  4.  —  K*|o , 
matters,  things,  viz.  those  which  he  had  seen  in  his  vision.  —  ^3£bri'"r'l  j 
Aph.  Fut.  p.  58,  Rem.l.  The  suff.  here  may  be  translated  as  in  the  Ace., 
make  me  know,  or  it  may  be  regarded  as  virtually  a  Dat.  with  to  or  for 
to  mark  the  relation  in  English,  §  50.  2.  a. 

(17)  As  to  those  great  beasts,  which  are  four  — four  kings  shall  arise  from  the 
earth. 

•psx  ,  fern.  plur.  =  "pax  ,  (omitted  by  Winer,  p.  34),  used  here 
merely  instead  of  the  copula  verb,  (which  usage  Winer  has  also  omit 
ted,  §  40.  1).  —  H3>2"!X ,  masc.  with  fern,  form,  as  the  preceding  ssm  is 


CHAP.  VII.  18—20.  219 


fern,  with  the  masc.  form,  §  36.  2.  'psba  ,  kings,  concrete  for  abstract, 
i.  e.  kings  for  kingdoms,  as  the  sequel  shows,  see  v.  23.  The  angel- 
interpreter  speaks  summarily  in  regard  to  these,  and  merely  places  them 
in  a  general  point  of  view.  The  fourth  kingdom,  (which  is  afterwards  re 
sumed),  is  the  special  object  he  has  in  view,  as  to  detail  ;  and  to  this  the 
subsequent  inquiries  of  Daniel  direct  his  attention.  When  it  is  said  : 
shall  arise,  the  Babylonish  monarchy  (one  of  the  four)  cannot  be  sup 
posed  to  be  yet  future,  inasmuch  as  the  vision  was  in  the  first  year  of 
the  last  king's  reign,  7:1.  But  —  a  potiori  nomen  fit  ;  three  of  the 
kingdoms  were  yet  future,  and  so  they  are  spoken  of  en  masse,  and 
in  the  same  way. 

(18)  And  the  saints  of  the  Most  High  shall  receive  the  kingdom,  and  they  shall 
possess  the  kingdom  for  ever,  yea  forever  and  ever. 


i,  those  consecrated  to  God,  the  pious.  Jehovah  says  of 
the  Hebrews,  that  they  must  be  'w;inj5  "n'a,  Ex.  19:  5,  6.  So  those  also 
must  be,  who  will  belong  to  the  fifth  or  Messianic  kingdom.  This  king 
dom  plainly  supervenes,  after  the  end  of  the  four  monarchies.  These 
belonged  not  to  the  saints.  The  pluralis  excellentiae  here,  "pai^S  ,  is 
found  in  no  other  case  in  Chaldee  ;  for  in  this  dialect,  such  a  plural  is 
rare,  §  55.  2. 

(19)  Then  I  asked  for  certainty  in  respect  to  the  fourth  beast,  which  differed  from 
all  of  them,  was  very  terrible,  his  teeth  were  of  iron,  and  his  claws  of  brass  5  it  de 
voured,  crushed,  and  the  remainder  it  trode  down  with  its  feet  ; 


rvnx  ,  1st  pers.  sing.  Peal  =  tv^x  ,  but  not  specially  noted  by  Wi 
ner.  —  Kas^b  in  the  Ace.,  or  it  may  be  made  in  the  Dat.,  and  so  we 
might  translate  :  wished  for  certainty.  —  "prf?3  would  be  the  proper 
pointing  of  the  Kethibh,  which  is  masc.,  agreeing  with  kings  implied  ; 
the  present  pointing  belongs  to  the  reading  "nbs  ,  as  indicated  in  the 
margin.  For  the  rest  of  the  verse,  see  above  in  v.  7.  One  circumstance 
is  here  added,  viz.  its  claws  were  of  brass.  This  gives  intensity  to  the 
image.  It  is  evident,  at  once,  that  Daniel's  principal  solicitude  has  re 
spect  to  the  fourth  beast.  This  he  describes  minutely,  as  he  had  first 
seen  and  described  it,  in  order  that  he  might  place  it  distinctly  before  the 
interpreter's  mind. 

(20)  And  concerning  the  ten  horns  which  vere  on  his  head,  and  another  one  that 
came  up,  and  three  fell  before  it,  and  the  same  horn  had  eyes,  and  a  mouth  speaking 
great  things,  and  the  look  of  it  was  stouter  than  that  of  its  fellows. 

This  verse  is  the  second  clause  of  a  sentence  begun  in  v.  19,  and  be 
fore  it,  by  implication,  we  must  supply  fD2Z?b  rvns  .  For  the  ten  horns, 


220  CHAP.  VII.  21,  22. 

see  v.  7.  For  the  ^".PX  (so  Kethibh)  there,  we  have  lbB3  here,  which 
the  Qeri  has  changed  into  the  fern,  nbss ,  without  any  necessity,  for  kings 
are  the  implied  subject ;  see  in  v.  7  on  snjrsrrx  .  The  next  clause  runs 
literally  thus :  And  as  to  that  horn,  eyes  were  to  it.  For  this  and  the 
next  clause,  see  v.  8  above.  —  Pi'tn ,  sufF.  form  of  "un ,  like  a  Heb.  Se- 
gholate,  lit.  the  look  or  appearance  of  it.  —  21  great  literally,  but  when 
applied  to  a  look,  it  may  mean  what  is  expressed  by  our  word  stout,  i.  e. 
haughty,  swaggering.  But  the  clause  may  also  mean  nothing  more,  than 
that  the  appearance  of  the  horn  which  sprang  up,  was  greater  as  to  mag 
nitude  than  the  appearance  of  the  others,  —  fi^^n  >  fem*  ?!•  witn  suff. 
fern.  sing,  relating  to  the  horn  ;  for  suff.  see  p.  36  top.  How  the  little 
horn  could  appear  greater  than  the  others,  is  easily  explained.  While 
the  seer  was  looking  at  it,  it  became  larger  and  larger,  until  it  came  to 
exceed  the  rest.  We  should  not  apply  this  to  the  mere  extent  of  Antio- 
chus'  sway,  but  to  the  gradual  strengthening  of  his  own  personal  influence, 
by  overcoming  the  parties  in  favor  of  other  claimants  of  the  crown,  and 
specially  does  it  apply  to  his  becoming  altogether  more  formidable  to  the 
Jews,  than  any  other  of  the  Syrian  princes. 

(21)  I  continued  looking,  and  that  horn  made  war  with  the  saints,  and  prevailed 
against  them. 

What  is  here  expressed  in  Daniel's  relation  of  his  vision  to  the  angel, 
is  omitted  in  his  statement  of  it  above  ;  see  v.  8  above,  which  compares 
with  v.  20  here,  but  after  the  8th  verse,  the  matter  of  v.  21  is  omitted. 
Daniel's  agitation,  in  regard  to  what  will  be  done  by  the  little  horn,  and 
his  desire  of  an  explanation  respecting  it,  lead  him  to  be  more  minute 
concerning  it,  in  his  relation  to  the  angel.  —  K^as  ,  Part.  fern. ;  in  Chald. 
nns;  usually  means  to  make,  do,  practise  ;  while  in  Hebrew  this  is  the 
less  usual  meaning —  to  serve  being  the  common  one.  —  2?P?  §  28.  a.  2. 
—  !~^r,7>  Part.  fern.  Both  the  participles  here  plainly  designate  con 
tinued  action.  —  *,'•"&  I  have  translated  against  them,  because  the  Eng. 
idiom  demands  this.  We  might  render  literally  thus  :  It  was  superior 
to  them,  or  it  prevailed  in  respect  to  them.  The  writer  of  the  Apoca 
lypse  has  employed  the  same  language  in  describing  the  contest  of  the 
beast  with  the  two  witnesses,  Rev.  11:  7  ;  with  the  saints,  Rev.  13:  7  ; 
and  with  the  Messiah,  Rev.  19:  19.  But  to  argue  from  this,  that  the 
Apocalyptist  has  the  same  personage  in  view  as  Daniel,  because  he  ap 
plies  Daniel's  language  to  his  own  purposes  of  description,  would  betray 
very  little  acquaintance  with  the  usages  of  the  N.  Test,  writers. 

(22)  Until  the  Ancient  of  Days  came,  and  the  tribunal  was  seated  for  the  saints  of 
the  Most  High,  and  the  appointed  time  came,  and  the  saints  possessed  the  kingdom. 

Comparing  this  with  vs.  9  seq.  above,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  substance 


CHAP.  VII.  23,  24.  221 

of  vs.  9 — 14  is  here  presented  in  a  single  verse.  The  reason  of  this  is 
plain.  Daniel  already  understood  the  Messianic  part  of  the  vision.  His 
inquiries  respected  the  fourth  beast,  and  specially  the  little  horn.  He 
therefore  enlarges  on  that  part  of  the  description,  and  compresses  all  be 
sides.  —  l":n  M*1^,  see  v.  9,  abstract  for  concrete,  judgment  for  judge. — 
'pa'pbs ,  plur.  see  v.  18.  —  ISOHii ,  instead  of  the  normal  ^Gnrt  in  Aphel ; 
it  is  simply  a  Heb.  Hiphil  form,  p.  50,  top.  In  vs.  9 — 14  above,  the 
leader  or  head  of  the  new  and  final  kingdom  is  made  altogether  con 
spicuous  ;  but  here  the  same  dominion  is  characterized,  by  describing  the 
character  of  those  who  belong  to  it  —  the  saints  of  the  Most  High. 

(23)  He  replied  thus  :  As  to  the  fourth  beast,  there  shall  be  a  fourth  kingdom  in 
the  earth,  which  shall  differ  from  all  the  other  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  devour  all  the 
earth,  and  tread  upon  it,  and  crush  it. 

Comp.  v.  7  above,  where  the  same  summary  account  of  the  fourth  dy 
nasty  is  given.  —  Kn^abo  ,  emph.  plur.  fern,  of  tobs  .  —  bawn1! ,  §  21.  a, 
it  shall  devour  =  it  shall  destroy.  —  fi|ttJsnn ,  Fut.  Peal  of  law ,  with 
augmented  suff.,  p.  58.  Hem.  1.  —  ttlP^n,  Aph.  Fut.  of  pj^r,  with  suff. 
as  before.  Both  of  the  suffixes  here  are  written,  in  some  Codices,  S3 — ; 
which  merely  shows  how  unsettled  a  part  of  the  Chaldee  vocalization  is. 
—  Tread  upon  it,  raw,  means  trampling  upon  anything  so  as  to  crush  it. 
But  here  the  crushing  is  designated  more  graphically  by  a  stronger  verb, 
ttSp'nn ,  which  means  to  crush  into  minute  pieces.  The  whole  is  vivid 
imagery  of  the  great  ravages  made  by  the  fourth  beast.  But  as  this  was 
a  compound  beast  (8:  8),  consisting  of  four  kingdoms,  it  was  doubtless  a 
matter  of  desire  to  Daniel,  to  know  which  of  these  must  be  expected  to 
perform  the  work  of  destruction.  The  sequel  tells  us  the  particulars  of 
the  matter  in  question.  —  All  the  earth  of  course  has  reference  here  to 
"  the  glory  of  all  lands,"  i.  e.  to  Palestine  ;  for  the  history  of  the  whole 
world  is  not  intended  to  be  given,  but  only  of  that  part  of  it  which  had  to 
do  with  the  people  of  God.  The  devastations  committed  in  Palestine  by 
Antiochus,  are  well  described  in  the  first  book  of  the  Maccabees,  and 
tolerably  in  Josephus.  It  is  clear,  that  the  Jews  were  treated  with  se 
verity  and  even  reckless  cruelty,  such  as  Antiochus  scarcely  indulged 
with  respect  to  any  other  nation.  That  the  phrase  in  question  —  all  the 
earth  —  often  designates  some  particular  country,  and  not  literally  the 
whole  world,  needs  not  any  proof  for  the  critical  reader. 

(24)  And  as  to  the  ten  horns  —  out  of  that  kingdom  ten  kings  shall  arise  ;   and 
another  shall  arise  after  them,  and  he  shall  differ  from  those  who  preceded,  and 
three  kings  shall  he  humble. 

TOE  from  the  same,  the  demonstrative  meaning  being  designated  by  the 

19* 


CHAP.  VII.  25. 

position  of  the  pronoun  before  the  noun,  §  43.  6.  b.  —  Ten  kings  shall 
arise,  not  ten  kingdoms,  although  horn  might  designate  kingdom,  as  it 
does  in  8:  8.  But  here  the  sequel  shows  that  kings  must  be  meant.  — 
Another  shall  arise  after  them,  com  p.  v.  8  above.  There,  instead  of 
-,rn"nnx  after  them,  we  have  "p""1"^?  among  them.  The  basis  of  the  idea  is 
the  same  in  both.  The  writer  means,  that  the  little  horn  was  from  the 
same  source  as  the  others  which  preceded  it.  It  sprang  up  among  them, 
and  came  after  them  in  succession.  Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  a  son  of 
Antiochus  the  Great,  and  a  brother  of  Seleucus  IV.  Philopator,  who  was 
assassinated  by  Heliodorus.  —  He  was  different  from  those  who  preceded 
him,  which  was  most  fully  true,  specially  as  it  respected  his  treatment 
of  the  Jews,  (which  doubtless  is  what  this  phrase  alludes  to),  as  well  as 
actually  in  point  of  personal  character. — And  three  kings  shall  he  humble, 
viz.  Heliodorus,  Ptolemy  IV.  Philometor,  and  Demetrius  the  lawful  heir 
to  the  throne ;  see  on  v.  8  above.  Here  the  angel-interpreter  mollifies 
the  stronger  verbs  that  had  been  used  by  Daniel,  in  v.  8  "H£Srx  ,  in 
v.  20  J&B3  ;  which  shows  that  the  rooting  out  and  the  falling  have  respect  to 
the  regal  office,  not  to  the  life  of  the  kings.  ^Qirrn ,  Hebraizing  Aph. 
with  prefix  fi  retained,  p.  49.  5  ;  also  p.  50  top,  for  the  final  Hhireq. 
To  humble  means  to  disappoint  of  their  aspiring  lofty  claims  to  kingly 
authority.  Heliodorus  was  doubtless  treated  as  a  rebel ;  but  the  life  of 
the  others  was  not  molested.  Such  an  interpretation  has  good  authority 
for  its  voucher,  viz.  that  of  the  angel-interpreter  in  using  the  verb  bQirrn. 
The  passage  being  understood  as  he  explains  it,  the  death  of  three  kings 
is  not  at  all  necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  vision. 

(25)  And  words  shall  he  utter  against  the  Most  High,  and  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High  shall  he  vex,  and  he  shall  think  to  change  times  and  law,  and  they  shall  be 
given  into  his  hand  for  a  time,  times,  and  the  dividing  of  time. 

*«b ,  lit.  to  the  side,  i.  e.  against,  like  the  Latin  adversus.  —  &r!b3>  (so 
the  Kethibh),  the  exalted  One,  of  course  means  the  Most  High.  — 
•nij'^pb ,  Ace.  after  tflbn'] ,  the  last  being  Pael  Fut.,  and  meaning  consume 
away,  vex,  harass.  —  nab1? ,  think,  hope,  expect.  —  fi^nb ,  Inf.  Aph. 
—  "paiat  ,  appointed  times,  such  as  feasts,  etc.,  in  reference  to  the  laws 
of  Moses  which  set  apart  many  of  these.  —  rrn  means  law  in  general ; 
but  here,  as  the  reference  is  made  to  religious  matters,  it  must  mean  the 
religious  laws  of  Moses.  In  6:  6,  the  word  is  plainly  employed  in  such  a 
sense.  —  'p?1'?  pi-  because  the  dual  is  wanting  in  the  Chaldee.  The  na 
ture  of  the  case  shows  that  two  times  is  the  probable  sense  here.  The 
singular  noun  most  naturally  means  a  year,  which  is  a  defined  period 
of  time.  So  in  4:  13,  seven  times  =  seven  years.  The  half  of  this 


CHAP.  VII.  25,  26.  223 

period  is  designated  by  the  phrase  time,  times  and  dividing  of  time, 
which  last  expression  means  half  year.  The  like  in  Hebrew,  in  Dan.  12  : 
7  and  in  9:  27,  we  find  half  of  a  week  or  heptade  [viz.  of  years].  See 
also  the  same  in  the  Apoc.  12: 14,  comp.  13:  5.  11:  2,  3.  12:  6.  A  com 
parison  of  all  these  passages  seems  to  settle  the  matter  conclusively,  that 
the  prophetic  year  consists  of  360  days  =  12  months  at  30  days  each. 
It  is  of  importance  to  note  this  ;  for  accuracy  of  calculation  must  depend 
on  it. 

Is  this  expression  of  time  poetical  merely  and  figurative,  consisting  of 
round  numbers  (as  they  say),  and  comprising  just  half  of  the  mystical  num 
ber  seven,  which  is  so  often  employed  in  a  kind  of  tropical  way  ?  Historical 
facts  seem  to  speak  for  the  literal  interpretation,  in  the  book  before  us. 
Yet,  considering  the  nature  of  the  case  and  of  the  number  usually  con 
cerned  with  such  reckonings,  (i.  e.  the  number  seven},  we  surely  need  not 
be  solicitous  about  a  day,  a  week,  or  even  a  month,  more  or  less.  The  con 
venience  of  the  reckoning,  when  it  is  near  enough  to  exactness  for  all  the 
purposes  of  prophecy,  is  very  obvious,  and  will  account  for  adopting  it. 

In  exhibiting  the  historical  facts,  we  will  begin  with  an  era  which  is  cer 
tain,  viz.  the  time  when  Judas  Mace,  expurgated  the  temple,  and  began  the 
service  of  God  anew.  This  was  on  the  25th  of  Dec.  148  ann.  Sel.  =  165  B.  C., 
see  1  Mace.  4:  52.  Counting  back  three  and  a  half  years,  we  come  to  June 
in  145  A.  S.  =  168  B.  C.  Livy  has  described  the  retreat  of  Antiochus 
from  Egypt,  in  the  early  spring  (primo  vere,  Liv.  xlv.  11.)  of  that  year. 
While  on  that  retreat,  Antiochus  detached  Apollonius,  one  of  his  military 
chieftains,  to  lay  waste  Jerusalem,  (comp.  2  Mace.  5: 11,  which  makes  the 
time  clear),  for  he  had  heard  that  the  Jews  exulted  at  his  misfortune,  in 
being  obliged  by  the  Romans  to  retreat  from  Egypt,  and  he  was  deter 
mined  to  wreak  his  vengeance  on  them.  He  did  so  effectually,  as  1  Mace. 
1:  29  seq.  fully  shows;  and  vs.  29,  20,  of  the  same  chapter,  compared  to 
gether,  show  that  the  year  was  145  A.  S.  as  above  stated.  From  June,  when 
Jerusalem  was  probably  taken,  to  December,  is  six  months  ;  and  from  De 
cember  in  168  to  December,  165,  is  three  years.  In  the  same  way,  as  to 
time,  does  Josephus  reckon,  Proem,  ad  Bell.  Jud.  §  7.  But  to  avoid  per- 
plexity,  it  should  be  noted  that  a  different  mode  of  reckoning,  viz.  three  years, 
is  sometimes  employed.  E.  g.  in  1  Mace.  4:  54,  and  2  Mace.  10:  5,  such  a 
method  appears  to  be  implied  ;  and  so  in  Jos.  Ant.  Jud.  XII.  7.  6.  An 
examination  of  the  context  in  these  cases  shows,  however,  that  this  period 
designates  only  the  time  that  intervened  between  the  profanation  of  the 
temple  by  heathen  sacrifices,  1  Mace.  1:  54,  and  the  consecration  of  it  by  Ju 
das  Maccabaeus,  1  Mace.  4:  54.  Some  six  months  after  capture  of  the  city,  du 
ring  which  all  manner  of  cruelties  and  excesses  were  committed,  appear  to 
have  elapsed  before  Antiochus  began  his  swinish  offerings  in  the  temple.  The 
consecration  of  the  temple  by  Judas  introduced  regularHebrew  worship  there; 
and  the  death  of  Antiochus  happening  shortly  afterward,  the  period  of  his 
oppression  was  of  course  at  its  end.  Thus  did  events  correspond  very  exactly 
with  the  time  designated  in  our  text.  We  cannot  indeed  specify  the  exact  day, 
because  history  has  not  done  this  ;  but  it  is  enough,  that  we  come  so  near  to 
the  time  designated,  as  to  remove  all  serious  difficulty  respecting  it. 


224  CHAP.  VII.  26—28. 

Other  passages  corresponding,  as  to  time,  with  the  verse  before  us,  may 
be  found  in  Dan.  9:  27.  12:  7,  and,  with  some  modifications,  the  periods 
marked  in  12:  11,  12,  harmonize  with  these.  The  discussion  respecting 
them,  however,  may  be  deferred  until  we  come  in  course  to  consider  them. 

(26)  And  the  tribunal  shall  be  seated,  and  his  power  shall  be  taken  away,  to  abol 
ish  and  to  destroy  it  for  ever. 

The  tribunal,  etc.  comp.  v.  9.  His  dominion,  viz.  that  of  the  fourth 
beast,  or  rather  of  that  other  king  mentioned  in  v.  24.  —  "p^rr  ,  Fut. 
Apb.  with  n  retained,  from  afis  ,  3  pi.  without  any  subject,  and  so  used 
in  a  passive  sense,  §  49.  3.  b.  The  two  verbs  that  follow  are  in  Inf.  Aphel, 
and  I  have  so  translated  them  ;  but  as  such  an  Infinitive  often  stands  in 
a  parallel  construction  with  clauses  having  definite  verbs,  we  might  here 
translate  :  it  shall  be  abolished  and  destroyed,  etc.  Winer  has  failed  to 
illustrate  this  idiom  ;  but  see  in  my  Roed.  Heb.  Gram.  §  129.  3.  Note  2. 
—  &t&"iO  ^5  ,  in  perpetuum,  as  Jerome  well  translates  it  ;  or,  if  one  in 
sists  on  retaining  the  shade  of  idea,  we  may  translate  :  to  the  end,  i.  e. 
of  all  things,  the  final  end.  It  may  have  another  shade  of  meaning,  viz. 
utterly,  finally. 

(27)  And  the  kingdom,  and  dominion,  and  power  of  the  kingdoms  under  the  whole 
heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High  ;  their  kingdom 
shall  be  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  all  dominions  shall  serve  and  obey  them. 


hardly  means  greatness,  i.  e.  extent,  in  this  passage.  It  is 
rather  the  equivalent  of  dvvapig.  The  meaning  of  the  whole  clause  is, 
that  the  dominion  and  power  of  all  kingdoms  shall  be  united  and  concen 
trated  in  the  new  or  Messianic  kingdom.  —  raw  ,  Part.  pass.  fern.  p.  51. 
—  ns'b,  to  the  people,  etc.  In  vs.  13,  14  above,  the  Head  of  this  new 
kingdom  is  presented  as  taking  the  dominion.  Here  the  subjects  of  that 
kingdom  en  masse  are  described  as  possessing  it.  The  N.  Test,  often 
presents  Christians  as  reigning  with  Christ.  —  JnniDba  ,  not  his,  as  refer 
ring  to  the  Most  High,  but  its  (or  as  we  must  express  it  their)  referring 
to  the  people  possessing  the  dominion.  So  fib  it  (Ace.  or  Dat.)  has 
reference  to  the  people  who  possess  the  supremacy,  and  so  I  have  trans 
lated  it  them.  —  •jsissnia'i  ,  Ithpaal,  §  10.  5.  b. 


(28)  Here  is  the  end  of  the  matter.  As  for  me  Daniel,  iny  thoughts  greatly  dis 
quieted  me,  and  rny  color  was  changed  upon  me,  but  I  kept  the  matter  in  my  own 
mind. 


?  unto  here,  i.  e.  at  this  point,  was  the  termination  both  of  the 
vision  and  the  explanation.  The  death  of  the  fourth  beast,  or  of  the  other 
king,  and  the  subsequent  new  kingdom,  was  the  end  or  completion  of  all 
that  was  disclosed.  Some  refer  ns-"i3>  merely  to  the  end  of  the  angel's 
disclosure  ;  with  less  probability.  —  ivn  ,  lit.  my  splendors,  describes 


or  THE 


x 
(UNIVERSITY) 

\v^?>  y,      0;F  .-  K 

CHAP.  VIII.    INTRODUCTION.  225 


vividly  the  shining  appearance  of  the  skin  in  full  health  and  strength. 
Paleness  supervened  in  this  case,  and  this  is  what  the  writer  means  to 
say.  —  "p'sndi,  Fut.  Ithpaal  of  xa^3,  §  10.  5.  b.  —  ib§,  over  me  or  up 
on  me,  i.  e.  over  the  surface  of  the  whole  body.  The  last  clause  in  the 
verse  may  denote  either  that  Daniel  revolved  the  whole  matter  carefully 
in  his  own  mind,  or  that  he  kept  it  to  himself,  without  communicating  it 
to  others ;  which,  on  the  whole,  I  deem  the  more  probable  meaning. 
Light  he  could  not  well  expect  from  others  ;  and  by  keeping  the  thing  to 
himself,  he  would  avoid  many  importunate  if  not  impertinent  questions. 


CHAPTER  VIII.   INTRODUCTION. 

[In  the  third  year  of  Belshazzar's  reign,  Daniel  saw  another  vision,  subsequent  to 
that  related  in  ch.  vii.  In  this  vision  he  was  transferred  to  Shushan  on  the  river  Ulai, 
in  the  province  of  Elam,  ( the  capital  of  the  future  Persian  empire),  vs.  1,  2.  Here  he 
saw  a  ram,  with  two  elevated  horns,  the  one  being  higher  however  than  the  other, 
but  more  recent  as  to  its  origin.  In  various  directions  did  the  ram  push,  and  nothing 
could  stand  before  him,  vs.  3,  4.  Upon  this,  a  he-goat  made  his  appearance,  bounding 
over  the  earth  without  seeming  to  touch  it ;  and  this  goat  had  a  notable  horn  between 
his  eyes,  v.  5.  He  came  to  the  ram  with  fury,  smote  him,  broke  his  horns,  and  trode 
him  down,  while  there  was  none  to  rescue,  vs.  6,  7.  The  he-goat  now  became  very 
great,  and  at  the  height  of  his  power,  his  great  horn  was  broken  in  pieces,  and  there 
came  up  four  other  notable  horns  in  its  room,  v.  8.  From  one  of  these  sprang  up  a 
little  horn,  which  waxed  great  toward  the  south,  and  east,  and  the  goodly  land  of  the 
Hebrews,  v.  9.  It  waxed  so  great  that  it  assailed  the  host  of  heaven  [the  sacred  officia- 
tors  in  the  temple],  and  some  of  these  it  cast  down  and  trode  upon,  v.  10.  Even  the 
prince  of  that  host  [the  God  of  the  temple]  was  deprived  by  him  of  his  daily  sacrifice, 
and  laws  and  ordinances  were  prostrated,  and  success  attended  the  undertakings  of 
the  tyrannical  oppressor,  v.  12.  While  contemplating  this  scene  of  desolation,  the 
prophet  hears  one  of  the  holy  angels  asking  another,  how  long  this  state  of  things  is 
to  continue,  v.  13.  The  answer  is  2300  days,  at  the  close  of  which  the  sanctuary  will 
be  vindicated,  v.  14.  Daniel  makes  for  himself  still  further  inquiry  respecting  the 
meaning  of  the  vision;  an  angel,  on  the  river's  bank,  requires  Gabriel  (the  angel- 
interpreter,  to  make  the  requisite  explanation,  vs.  15,1 6.  This  angel  approaches  Daniel, 
who  swoons,  and  is  lifted  up  and  revived  by  his  kind  interpreter,  vs.  17, 18.  Gabriel  in 
forms  him,  that  he  shall  make  particular  disclosures  respecting  what  is  to  happen  at  the 
last  part  of  the  season  of  affliction,  v.  19.  He  says,  that  the  ram  symbolizes  the  kings  of 
Media  and  Persia  ;  the  he-goat,  the  king  of  Grecia ;  the  great  horn  is  its  first  king,  and 
the  breaking  of  it  is  the  ruin  of  his  empire ;  out  of  this  ruin  shall  arise  four  dynasties, 
with  inferior  power,  vs.20 — 22.  In  after-times  shall  arise  from  one  of  them  a  king,  cruel, 
cunning,  a  fearful  destroyer,  specially  of  the  holy  people,  vs.  23, 24.  By  his  craft  and  sa 
gacity,  he  will  destroy  many  without  waging  war;  on  account  of  his  success,  he  will 
become  haughty  and  set  himself  against  the  Prince  of  princes;  by  whom  he  shall  be 
dashed  in  pieces,  v.  25.  Daniel  is  assured,  that  the  vision  is  true,  and  he  is  directed  to 
seal  it  up,  because  it  pertains  to  a  distant  future,  v.  26.  Daniel  again  swoons,  and  is  af 
terwards  sick  for  some  days.  He  aftei\this  returns  to  his  ordinary  official  business,  v.27.] 


226  INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAP.  VIII. 

It  is  plain,  at  first  view,  that  the  Babylonish  monarchy  is  here  omitted. 
Twice  (ch.  ii.  vii.)  had  it  already  been  described,  and  it  was  now  near  its 
close,  and  nothing  specially  worthy  of  particular  note,  in  respect  to  the 
Jews,  was  to  take  place  before  that  close.  To  Daniel,  therefore,  a  further 
disclosure  is  made,  in  regard  to  those  empires  which  would  be  particu 
larly  concerned,  in  future,  either  with  favoring  his  countrymen  or  with 
annoying  them.  These  were  mainly  the  second  and  fourth  dynasties,  (so 
named  in  reference  to  ch.  vii.)  The  third  seems  to  be  here  introduced 
mainly  because  it  stands  between  the  Medo-Persian  dominion  and  that 
of  the  fourth  beast. 

As  might  naturally  be  expected,  Daniel,  as  he  approaches  nearer  to 
the  events  predicted,  becomes  more  specific  in  his  statements  respecting 
them.  For  example,  in  ch.  vii.  no  account  is  given  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  second  or  Medo-Fersian  empire  is  overthrown  ;  but  here,  in  vs.  5 — 7, 
we  have  a  graphic  account  of  its  fall.  In  ch.  vii,  no  account  is  given  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  third  beast  perishes  and  the  fourth  beast  arises ;  but 
in  v.  8  here  we  have  one  specifically  given.  In  ch.  vii,  the  little  horn  is  mere 
ly  said  to  arise  among  the  other  ten  horns  of  the  fourth  beast ;  here  it  is 
stated,  that  it  arose  out  of  one  of  the  four  dominions  of  the  last  empire.  In 
ch.  vii,  the  blasphemous,  boasting,  persecuting  character  of  the  little  horn  is 
merely  glanced  at,  (vs.  8,  24,  25)  ;  but  here  we  have  a  full  detail,  as  it 
were,  of  cruelties  and  abominations,  vs.  9 — 12,  23 — 25.  In  ch.  vii,  we 
have  a  designation  of  the  time,  during  which  the  desolations  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  temple  shall  take  place  beyond  all  former  example  (v.  25)  ; 
while  in  ch.  viii,  we  have  a  different  designation  of  time,  in  respect  to 
matters  which  are  of  wider  extent.  Finally,  the  whole  circle  of  beasts  in 
ch.  vii,  are  different  from  those  introduced  in  ch.  viii.  The  beasts  here 
are  not  chosen  so  much  with  reference  to  their  rabid  and  destructive 
nature,  as  with  reference  to  their  active  and  rapid  movements. 

If  any  reader  should  be  tempted  to  think  it  strange,  that  the  same 
subjects  should  be  repeated,  even  with  additional  specifications,  (as  is 
particularly  the  case  with  the  fourth  dynasty  in  this  book,  in  chaps,  ii. 
vii.  viii.  xi.,  and  above  all  with  the  description  of  the  little  horn  or  Anti- 
ochus  Epiphanes),  he  needs  only  to  turn  to  Isaiah,  and  ask  how  often 
the  Assyrian  invasion  is  there  depicted ;  or  to  the  prophets  in  general 
and  ask :  How  many  are  the  prophecies  respecting  the  destruction  of 
Babylon,  Egypt,  Moab,  Tyre,  Philistia,  etc.  The  answer  to  these  ques 
tions  will  remove  any  difficulty  which  the  book  before  us  seems  to  pre 
sent,  in  regard  to  repetition. 

In  fact,  how  can  we  be  competent  to  decide,  how  often  peculiar  circum 
stances  among  the  Hebrews  demanded  a  renewal  of  the  same  subject? 


CHAP.  VIII.  1,  2.  227 

But  in  the  present  case,  the  later  predictions  are  seldom,  if  ever,  mere 
repetitions  of  the  preceding  ones.  New  circumstances  are  developed ; 
or  the  subject  is  placed  in  a  new  attitude ;  or  it  is  connected  with  some 
promise  or  threatening.  In  a  word,  there  is  always  something  in  the 
later  prediction,  to  adapt  it  to  the  time  when  it  was  uttered. 

In  the  case  before  us,  the  time  drew  near  when  the  Medo-Persian 
dynasty  would  commence.  Before  that  period,  the  Jews  were  to  change 
their  outward  circumstances  in  no  important  respect.  The  writer,  there 
fore,  now  begins  with  the  dynasty  which  would  make  a  change.  And 
in  order  to  obtain  an  appropriate  place  of  vision,  he  is  transferred  in  his 
ecstasy  to  the  capital  of  the  Medo-Persian  empire,  and  from  its  tower 
or  citadel  he  looks  out  over  the  ground  of  empires  yet  future.  And  in 
asmuch  as,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  later  vision  is  more  specific 
than  the  earlier  ones,  it  affords  us  very  important  aid  in  the  explanation 
of  what  might  otherwise  be  dubious  from  its  brevity  or  generality,  in  the 
preceding  oracles. 

( 1 )  In  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Belshazzar  the  king,  a  vision  appeared  to  me, 
to  me  Daniel,  after  that  which  appeared  to  me  in  the  beginning. 

The  reader  will  note,  that  the  Hebreiv  language  is  now  employed,  and 
so  through  the  remainder  of  the  book.  The  Grammar  to  which  refer 
ence  is  made,  is  the  one  quoted  under  chap.  i.  v.  1.  —  nx1??,  Niph.  re 
flexive,  shewed  itself,  i.  e.  appeared.  —  "ox  in  the  Dat.  because  the  pro 
noun  is  repeated  ;  see  in  Roed.  Heb.  Gramm.  §  119.  3. —  fitf'isn,  tt  with 
Dagh.  f.  has  the  form  of  the  article,  but  it  is  here  a  pronoun,  which  or 
that  which,  §  107.  1.  —  f^nna ,  lit.  in  the  beginning,  which  however  is 
equivalent  in  usage  to  our  word  formerly,  at  first.  The  reference  plainly 
is  to  the  vision  .in  the  first  year  of  Belshazzar,  recorded  in  chap.  vii. 
This  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  Bertholdt's  affirmation,  that  different  per 
sons  were  the  authors  of  chap.  vii.  and  viii.  The  necessary  inference 
here  is,  that  the  same  individual  was  the  seer  in  both  cases. 

(2)  And  I  saw  in  vision,  and  it  was  so,  that  while  I  saw,  I  was  in  Shushan  the 
citadel,  which  is  in  the  province  of  Elam,  yea  I  saw  in  vision  when  I  was  by  the 
river  Ulai. 

I  saw  in  vision  designates  the  prophetic  ecstasy  in  which  he  was.  The 
place  of  the  vision  is  designated  in  two  different  ways.  First,  it  is  said 
to  be  in  Shushan  the  citadel  or  palace,  which  was  a  portion  of  the  city  of 
Shushan,  and  doubtless  was  the  germ  from  which  the  city  sprang.  The 
fortified  part  of  the  city,  i.  e.  the  citadel,  would  be  of  course  the  most 
probable  place  of  the  king's  abode.  In  the  book  of  Esther,  the  word 
frpa  denotes  both  citadel  and  city  ;  in  3:  15,  it  has  both  meanings  in  the 


228  CHAP.  VIII.  2. 

same  verse.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that  this  city  was  the 
leading  capital  of  the  new  Medo-Persian  dynasty.  It  lay  on  the  river 
Choaspes,  about  some  250  miles  east  of  Babylon.  —  Elam  the  province 
(so  the  Hebrew  runs)  shows,  that  Elam,  at  the  time  of  writing,  either 
did  not  mean  the  whole  of  Persia,  (as  however  it  often  does),  or  else 
that  Persia  itself  was  then  only  a  province  of  the  Median,  or  of  the  Ba 
bylonian,  empire.  No  satisfactory  evidence  seems  to  have  been  pro 
duced,  that  Babylon,  at  this  period,  held  dominion  over  any  part  of  the 
Median  territory.  Still,  from  the  proximity  of  Elam  to  Babylonia,  and 
from  the  fact  that  the  Median  kings  had  frequent  difficulties  with  the 
Babylonish  ones,  it  may,  at  that  period,  have  been  made  a  tributary  pro 
vince  of  Babylon.  Our  accounts  of  the  minor  political  changes,  in  an 
cient  times,  in  different  countries  beyond  the  Tigris,  are  so  very  imper 
fect,  that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  any  argumentum  a  silentio  made 
out  from  a  lack  in  these  sources,  against  the  position  just  mentioned. 
But  be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  certain  that  in  Daniel's  time  Persia  was  not 
independent,  until  near  the  close  of  his  life,  and  that  if  it  was  not  under 
the  supervision  of  Babylon,  it  was  at  least  a  province  of  Media.  —  I  was 
by  the  river  Ulai,  gives  the  specific  locality,  for  purposes  apparent  in  the 
sequel.  The  whole  clause  is  parallel  to  the  preceding  one,  and  differs 
only  in  marking  the  locality  with  more  minuteness.  Both  Pliny  (Hist. 
Nat.  VI.  31),  and  Arrian  (Exp.  Alex.  VII.  7),  make  mention  of  the 
river  Eulaeus  at  Susa  or  Shushan ;  but  Herodotus  and  Strabo  appear 
to  call  the  same  river  Choaspes.  The  confusion  of  names  among  the 
Greek  and  Latin  writers,  with  respect  to  the  East,  is  not  unfrequently 
great  and  quite  perplexing.  For  example ;  Ctesias  puts  Nineveh  on 
the  Euphrates ;  Pliny,  on  the  west  of  the  Tigris ;  the  Syriac  Version 
puts  Euphrates  for  Tigris,  in  Dan.  10:  4 ;  and  Lucian  places  Seleucia 
on  the  Euphrates,  (Dea  Syr.  §  18).  Enough  for  our  purpose,  that  Ulai 
was  at  least  one  of  the  names  by  which  the  river  that  flows  around  Shu 
shan  was  known.  —  But  why  such  a  locality  ?  Because  the  prophet's 
present  vision  begins  with  the  Medo-Persian  empire,  and  Shushan  was 
to  be  its  capital.  And  why  on  the  river's  bank  ?  Not  because  the  Jews 
were  wont  to  build  prayer-houses  in  such  places,  Acts  16:  13;  nor  be 
cause  Ezekiel  had  visions  on  the  Chaboras,  1: 1,  3.  3: 15,  23  al.,  (Leng.)  ; 
nor  because  of  the  solitude  of  the  place  (Maur.)  ;  but  simply,  as  I  un 
derstand  it,  because  the  castle  (FT^a)  stood  on  the  banks  of  the  river. 
The  mention  of  the  river,  however,  would  still  be  in  a  measure  superflu 
ous,  were  not  this  mention  a  preparation  for  what  is  said  in  v.  16. 

As  to  all  the  difficulties  that  have  been  raised,  by  asserting  that  Shu 
shan  did  not  belong  to  Babylon,  in  Daniel's  time,  and  that  he  could  not 


CHAP.  Yin.  3,  4  229 

be  there  on  the  king's  business  (v.  27),  and  the  like,  it  would  be  easy  to 
reply,  that  the  first  cannot  be  proved,  and  that  the  second  presents  no 
real  difficulty.  The  Babylonian  king  might  surely  have  some  business 
with  the  province  of  Elam,  although  it  did  not  belong  to  his  domain  ; 
and  he  might  have  sent  Daniel  to  do  it.  But  we  have  a  readier  answer, 
viz.  that  Daniel  is  on  the  Ulai  merely  in  vision,  not  physically.  So 
Pharaoh  was  on  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  Gen.  41:  1  ;  Ezekiel  (at  the  river 
Chebar)  was  in  Jerusalem,  8:  3,  and  in  the  land  of  Israel,  40:  2.  So 
John  (while  at  Patmos)  was  taken  to  the  wilderness,  Rev.  17:  3,  comp. 
21:  10.  This  settles  all  difficulties  at  once,  and  comparing  vs.  2:  27,  one 
can  see  no  room  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  this  view. 

(3)  And  I  lifted  up  ray  eyes,  and  looked,  and  lo  !  a  ram  standing  before  the  river, 
and  he  had  two  horns,  and  the  two  horns  were  high,  but  one  was  higher  than  the 
other,  and  the  higher  one  sprang  up  last. 


Kal.  Imperf.  of  Ktoa.  —  Vji&tfj,  with  art.  referring  to  the  same 
word  in  v.  2.  —  o^P  >  a  dual  which  must  come  from  'j'nj?  instead  of  the 
usual  ynjs  .  —  tvaiBii  ,  lit.  the  second,  which  of  course  here  means  the  other. 
—  nbs  ,  Part.  Pres.  fern,  denoting  continued  action,  so  that,  during  the 
vision,  the  prophet  saw  the  last  horn  in  an  increasing  state  ;  comp.  7:  20. 
In  8:  20,  the  interpreter  declares  that  the  ram  symbolizes  the  kings  of 
the  Medes  and  Persians.  The  imagery,  then,  which  is  here  employed, 
corresponds  very  exactly  with  historical  facts.  The  two  horns  are  Me 
dia  and  Persia.  The  first  of  these,  Media,  was  an  independent  kingdom 
long  before  Persia  was  anything  but  a  province.  But  ever  after  Cyrus 
came  to  the  throne,  Persia  was  the  leading  kingdom.  So  the  higher 
horn  came  up  last. 

(4)  I  saw  the  ram  thrusting  westward,  and  northward,  and  southward,  and  none 
of  the  beasts  stood  before  it,  nor  did  any  deliver  out  of  his  hand,  and  he  did  accord 
ing  to  his  pleasure,  and  became  haughty. 


naap  ,  to  thrust  at,  to  strike  with  violence,  in  vulgar  language  to  butt,  in 
Latin  arietare.  This  characterizes  the  impetuous  assaults  of  Cyrus  and 
Darius  on  foreign  countries.  —  Westward,  viz.  Babylonia,  Mesopotamia^ 
Syria,  Asia  Minor  ;  northward,  Colchis,  Iberia,  Armenia,  the  Caspian 
regions  ;  southward,  Palestine,  Egypt,  Lybia,  Ethiopia,  etc.  Eastward 
is  not  mentioned,  for  the  Persians  made  no  considerable  conquests  there 
until  Darius'  time,  and  then  not  of  a  permanent  nature.  After  the  Part. 
HMB  the  noun  least  is  implied,  as  the  next  clause  shows.  —  ni*n  is  a 
symbol  of  kingdoms.  —  l^rasn  s<b  ,  could  not  stand  up,  i.  e.  could  not  main 
tain  an  erect  and  firm  position,  or  (in  other  words)  they  were  prostrated. 

'20 


230  CHAP.  VIII.  5,  6. 


,  lit.  from  his  hand,  i.  e.  from  his  power;  constructio  ad  sensum. 

i  ,  Hiph.  but  without  any  Ace.  after  it,  i.  e.  Hiph.  absolute.  In 
such  a  case,  this  verb  means  :  behaved  haughtily,  acted  proudly,  see  Lam. 
1:  9.  Zeph.  2:  8.  Flushed  with  success,  we  know  from  all  quarters  that 
the  Persian  kings  assumed  a  haughty  position.  So  Croesus,  (in  Herod. 
I.  89)  :  rifQoai  .  .  .  vfiQiarai:  and  so  Aeschylus  (Pers.  v.  795),  vneQ~ 

ayav. 


(5)  And  I  was  considering,  and  lo  !  a  he-goat  came  from  the  west,  on  the  face  of 
all  the  earth,  and  he  touched  not  the  face  of  the  ground;  and  as  to  the  goat,  a  con- 
spicuous  horn  was  between  his  eyes. 


.ri  denotes  very  prominently  the  continued  action  of  a  reflect 
ing  mind.  —  "nss  ,  lit.  the  leaper,  i.  e.  hircus.  —  D^'fi  ,  from  t§  ,  which 
designates  the  genus  capra.  The  addition  of  this  word  to  "p&x  ,  seems 
to  indicate  that  this  latter  word  of  itself  was  not  definite  enough  for  the 
purpose  of  the  writer.  —  Came  over  or  upon  all  the  earth,  and  touched 
not  its  surface,  conveys  a  very  vivid  impression  of  the  rapidity  and  irre 
sistible  force  of  Alexander's  army  in  its  marches  and  battles.  So  in  1 
Mace.  1:3:  dift&w  sca$  axQav  rijg  yijg.  The  first  expression  in  our 
text  denotes  the  extent  of  the  cpnquests  ;  the  last,  the  rapidity  with  which 
they  were  achieved.  In  7:  6,  the  panther  has  four  wings  ;  which  con 
veys  the  like  idea.  Virgil  (VII.  806  seq.)  presents  an  expanded  but 
beautiful  image  of  Camilla,  as  skimming  over  the  fields,  and  then  over 
the  ocean  without  tinging  her  feet  ;  but  it  lacks  the  energy  of  the  clause 
before  us.  —  rmn  y^j?,  lit.  cornu  adspectus,  a  horn  of  visibility  or  conspi- 
cuity  (sit  venia  !).  The  meaning  seems  to  be,  that  from  its  magnitude  it 
was  particularly  conspicuous.  Theodotion,  very  exactly  :  xejpa?  -frscoQe- 

TOV.  The  pointing  of  De  Wette,  rwn  (from  \^),  and  the  rendering  by 
sharp-pointed  horn,  is  ingenious,  but  unnecessary,  and  indeed  less  signifi 
cant  than  the  form  above.  The  word  horn  is  employed  as  the  emblem 
of  power.  Rev.  5:  6.  13:  1.  Zech.  1:  18,  19,  al.  ;  of  kingdoms  as  Dan.  8: 
8,  3  ;  and  also  of  kings,  7:  20,  24.  In  the  text  before  us,  the  one  nota 
ble  horn  symbolizes  the  one  or  sole  dominion  of  Alexander  in  a  very 
expressive  way.  —  between  his  eyes  evidently  is  intended  to  designate 
its  peculiar  annoying  power,  in  thrusting  at  those  who  opposed  it,  the 
position  rendering  it  formidable. 

(6)  And  he  came  to  the  ram  which  had  two  horns,  which  I  had  seen  standing  be 
fore  the  river,  and  ran  to  him  in  his  strong  indignation. 


sa  ,  lit.  master  or  possessor  of  two  horns,  see  bya  in  Lex.     The 
Koran  and  the  Orientals  generally  give  to  Alexander,  the  title  two- 


CHAP.  VHI.  7,  8.  231 

horned,  in  order  to  indicate  his  power  and  vehemence.  —  He  ran  to  him, 
indicates  the  velocity  of  his  movements.  —  In  the  indignation  of  his 
power  (lit.)  means  with  strong  or  vehement  impetuosity  or  ardor.  i'nb  is 
the  Gen.  of  quality. 

(7)  And  I  saw  him  as  he  approached  near  the  ram,  and  he  became  enraged  at 
him,  and  he  smote  the  ram,  and  brake  in  pieces  his  two  horns  ;  and  there  was  no 
strength  in  the  ram  to  stand  before  him,  for  he  cast  him  down  to  the  earth  and  trode 
upon  him,  and  there  was  none  to  afford  deliverance  to  the  ram  out  of  his  hand. 


yw  ,  Hiph.  Part,  of  SS5  ,  lit.  an  approacher,  or  (like  a  Greek  partici 
ple  with  its  adsignifications)  as  or  when  approaching.  —  "ra'nrpn  ,  Hith- 
palpel  of  *nE  ,  is  intransitive,  and  so  it  is  followed  by  bx  to  indicate  the 
direction  of  the  rage.  —  f^i  ,  Imperf.  Apoc.  of  nsa  ,  in  Hiph.,  the  Kal 
form  not  being  in  use.  —  fix"?**  ,  with  n-  local,  §  88.  2.  a.  —  b^b  ,  b  p. 
190.  c  ;  it  may  be  in  the  Ace.  governed  by  the  Part,  before  it,  or  we 
may  make  it  Dat.  by  translating  as  above. 

(8)  And  the  he-goat  waxed  exceedingly  great,  and  when  he  became  powerful,  the 
great  horn  was  broken,  and  there  sprang  up  the  appearance  of  four  in  its  room,  to 
ward  the  four  winds  of  heaven. 

Alexander,  at  the  very  height  of  his  power,  died  suddenly  at  Baby 
lon,  B.  C.  323.  —  Sprang  up  the  appearance  of  four,  i.  e.  of  four  horns,  the 
symbol  of  four  kingdoms.  But  this  construction  is  somewhat  doubtful, 
for  rmn  may  here  mean,  as  before,  aspectabile,  \.  e.  something  prominent 
and  visible.  If  so,  then  niyijD  should  be  mentally  supplied  before  it,  as 
v.  5  teaches  us.  So  Leng.,/owr  large  horns.  I  still  have  doubts,  whether 
rvitn  here  is  not  to  be  taken  adverbially,  as  marking  the  distinctness  of 
the  appearance  =  visibly,  palpably  ;  or  possibly  it  may  mark  simply  the 
appearance  in  the  sense  of  apparently,  seemingly.  But  of  this  last  mean 
ing,  I  cannot  find  parallels  elsewhere  ;  yet  it  is  so  evidently  within  the 
compass  of  the  word,  that  they  are  not  much  needed.  As  to  historical 
facts,  the  Grecian  empire  was  at  first  nominally  left  to  Alexander's  son, 
but  in  reality  never  came  to  him.  The  military  chieftains  of  the  differ 
ent  countries  subdued  by  Alexander,  fought  continually  with  each  other; 
and  it  was  some  twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Alexander,  before  the 
famous  division  into  four  monarchies  came  to  be  fully  made  and  estab 
lished.  But  of  these  subordinate  events,  it  is  not  to  the  writer's  purpose 
to  take  any  particular  notice.  Chap.  11:  4  shows,  quite  plainly,  that  a 
complete  end  of  Alexander's  dominion,  as  such,  was  made  by  his  death. 
Porphyry  names  the  four  kingdoms,  in  a  generic  way,  Macedonia,  Syria, 
Asia,  Egypt.  But  these  names  must  not  be  strictly  taken.  They  are 
so  named  by  him,  merely  on  the  principle  that  a  potion  nomenjit. 


232  CHAP.  VIII.  9,  10. 

(9)  And  from  one  of  them  sprang  up  a  little  horn,  and  it  waxed  great  abundantly 
toward  the  south,  and  toward  the  east,  and  toward  the  goodly  land. 


n^o  of  them,  masc.,  while  horns,'  Piis^f?  >  ^s  ^em*  But  tne  concord  here 
is  ad  sensum,  kings  being  symbolized  by  the  horns.  The  same  of  NS^  the 
masc.  verb,  §  143.  2.  —  rrnsJSTa  ,  lit.  of  smallness,  the  fern.  adj.  being  used 
as  an  abstract  noun,  §  105.  3.  b.  This  meaning  is  made  clear  by  !"mn 
in  7:  8.  The  meaning  more  than  small,  i.  e.  large,  made  by  taking  the  59 
in  a  comparative  sense,  seems  to  have  no  good  foundation  here.  Indeed 
the  next  clause  refutes  this  ;  for,  from  a  state  of  smallness,  the  horn 
waxed  exceedingly  great.  —  "ir£  is  used  adverbially.  —  The  south  means 
Egypt,  into  which  Antiochus  Epiphanes  made  four  military  incursions, 
for  the  most  part  successfully.  —  Toward  the  East,  viz.  Persia  or  Ely- 
mais,  whither  Antiochus  made  a  predatory  excursion,  but  at  last  met  with 
a  repulse  there,  when  robbing  a  temple  ;  and  soon  after  this  he  died  ; 
comp.  11:  41  —  44.  —  "^Stt  ,  lit.  the  glory,  the  ornament  =  ^SSf]  y^X  in  11: 
41,  i.  e.  the  land  of  glory,  or  the  glorious  land,  an  honorary  name  of  Pales 
tine.  In  the  mind  of  a  Hebrew,  this  appellation  was  fraught  with  mean 
ing  ;  let  the  reader  compare  Ezek.  20:  6,  15.  Jer.  3:  19.  The  frequent 
incursions  of  Antiochus  into  Palestine,  are  of  course  well  known  to  all 
who  have  any  knowledge  of  ancient  history. 

(10)  And  it  magnified  itself  even  to  the  host  of  heaven,  and  it  cast  down  to  the 
earth  some  of  the  host  and  of  the  stars,  and  trampled  upon  them. 

15  ,  to,  unto,  usque  ad,  stronger  than  bx  .  The  elevation  is,  in  this  way, 
made  even  more  than  superlative.  But  what  is  host  of  heaven  ?  Every 
thing  depends  on  a  right  view  of  this  word,  as  to  the  exegesis  here.  I 
have  examined  all  the  cases  in  which  the  sacred  writings  employ  KiSt  , 
both  sing,  and  plural.  They  are  easily  reduced  to  order.  I  rank  first  the 
generic  idea,  in  the  verbal  stern,  of  going  forth  in  a  company  or  band. 
Hence  the  usual  meaning  of  the  noun  x^  ,  host,  army,  and  so  warfare, 
trop.  hard  service,  trouble.  The  great  mass  of  examples  is  of  this  nature. 
But  there  are  off-shoots  from  this  stem.  The  generic  idea  of  band  or 
company,  simply,  may  be  found  in  Ps.  68:  12  (11).  This  is  applied  often 
to  the  multitude  of  stars,  i.  e.  host  of  heaven  ;  see  Lex.  In  a  few  cases, 
also,  where  the  sing,  is  employed,  to  the  angels,  e.  g.  1  K.  22:  19.  2  Chron. 
18:  18.  Isa.  24:  21  ;  but  with  the  plur.,  e.  g.  Jehovah  of  hosts,  God  of  hosts, 
etc.,  in  an  overwhelming  mass  of  examples  ;  see  Fiirst,  Cone.  Heb.  It 
is  remarkable,  that  all  of  these,  except/o?^r,  omit  the  article  ;  which  shows 
that  the  word  m'xsx  acquired  something  of  the  quality  of  a  proper  name. 
These  last  expressions  also,  for  the  most  part,  refer  to  the  angelic  hosts  ; 
some  of  them  may  apply  to  both  stars  and  angels,  in  a  generic  sense.  The 


CHAP.  VIII.  11.  233 

Sept.  gives  a  great  variety  of  versions  ;  but  the  leading  ones  are  GTQCL- 
n'a,  77ota/iO£,  nctQciTafys  (a  fine  generic  word),  dvvafue,  H&%fy  tat- 
Tovgyia.  This  last,  which  means  service  of  any  kind  that  is  performed 
catervatim,  i.  e.  in  bands  or  companies,  throws  light  on  Num.  4: 23.  8:  24, 
25,  where,  beyond  a  doubt,  the  temple-service,  as  performed  by  the  chosen 
band  of  the  priests,  is  designated.  In  connection  with  the  temple,  such  a 
meaning  of  the  word  in  question  seems  unavoidable.  In  Dan.  8:  11  it 
stands  connected  with  the  sanctuary  ('imj^p  TOTS)  ;  and  in  v.  13,  again 
with  the  sanctuary  (^1p)-  I can  therefore  assign  to  it  here  no  other  mean  - 
ing  than  that  given  in  Num.  4:  23.  8:  24,  25,  because  its  connection  is 
the  same.  In  my  apprehension,  the  whole  context,  and  the  comparison  of 
this  passage  with  others  of  like  tenor  in  ch.  vii.  xi.,  oblige  us  to  assign  this 
and  no  other  meaning.  Host  of  heaven  cannot  mean  stars  here,  in  a  lite 
ral  sense  ;  nor  angels  in  a  literal  sense  ;  for  this  would  make  the  pas 
sage  absurd.  It  cannot  mean  army,  host,  in  the  military  sense  ;  for  the 
host  in  question  here  is  merely  one  connected  with  the  sanctuary  ;  comp. 
also  Rev.  12:  4.  Nor  does  it  probably  mean  people  of  God,  saints,  corps 
d*  elites  i.  e.  the  Jewish  nation  (Leng.)  ;•  for  in  such  a  sense  we  find  it  no 
where  else  employed.  That  the  word  stars  should  be  employed  to  desig 
nate  distinguished  leaders,  teachers,  etc.,  is  easy  and  natural.  But  the  col 
lective  nature  of  the  idea  comprised  in  NSs  here  forbids  such  an  applica 
tion  to  a  mere  individual.  There  remains,  then,  only  the  meaning  in  Num. 
4:  23  etc.,  as  above  stated. 

The  application  is  easy.  Other  nations  and  kings  were  wont,  in  their 
wars,  to  respect  temples  and  their  priests ;  but  Antiochus  made  war  on 
both  at  Jerusalem.  He  first  took  away  all  the  apparatus  employed  in  the 
ordinary  service  of  the  temple  ;  then  finally  he  erected  an  altar  there  to 
his  patron-god,  and  sacrificed  swine  upon  it.  The  priests  he  killed,  or  drove 
into  exile.  Sojt  is  said  in  the  sequel :  And  it  [the  horn]  cast  down  to 
the  earth  some  of  the  host.  —  "pa  as  before  in  a  partitive  sense,  some, 
some  of,  a  part  of,  see  Lex.  —  Maisn",^  appears  designed  (by  pre 
fixing  -pM)  not  to  be  merely  exegetical  of  the  preceding  word,  but  by  itself 
to  designate  the  like  idea  more  intensively.  Some  of  the  stars,  the  constel 
lations  (the  art.  is  prefixed),  are  of  course  the  leaders  among  the  priest 
hood,  i.  e.  persons  who  from  their  influence  deserve  such  a  name  pre 
eminently  or  peculiarly.  —  Andtrode  them  underfoot,  a  strong  expression, 
(none  too  strong),  to  designate  the  cruel  and  contemptuous  treatment 
that  the  priesthood  met  with  from  Antiochus. 

(11 )  Even  to  the  Prince  of  the  host  did  he  magnify  himself,  and  from  him  did  he 
take  away  the  daily  sacrifice,  and  the  dwelling-place  of  his  sanctuary  was  cast  down. 

ThePrince  of  the  host  is  doubtless  God  himself |  as  the  sequel  clearly  shows; 

20* 


234  CHAP.  VIII.  12. 

comp.  7:20,21,25.  8:25.  11:28,30—36.—  a-nn,  the  vowels  be 
longing  to  the  Qeri  a^fi  .  But  I  prefer  the  Kethibh,  D^n  ,  and  have 
so  translated.  The  meaning  is  more  efficient  than  the  simple  passive. 
As  to  the  masc.  form  of  the  two  verbs  here,  it  is  necessary  only  to  remark, 
that  the  concord  is  ad  sensum,  for  the  horn  designates  a  king.  —  The 
dwelling  place  of  his  sanctuary  means  his  sacred  dwelling  place,  i.  e.  the 
temple.  The  whole  temple  was  not  indeed  demolished  by  Antiochus  ; 
but  the  sanctuary  was  rifled,  and  shockingly  profaned.  In  respect  to  the 
word  TSFirt  ,  it  is  plainly  a  breviloquent  expression.  The  full  form  would 
require  p.Vis?  before  it,  which  l^attft  would  then  qualify.  A  breviloquent 
method  of  expression  is  prevalent  in  Daniel,  and  is  somewhat  character 
istic  :  see  8:  12,  13.  11:  31.  12:  11.  For  the  actual  doings  of  Antiochus, 
see  1  Mace.  1:  22.  3:  45—51. 

(12)  And  a  host  was  placed  over  the  daily  sacrifice  by  wickedness,  and  it  cast  down 
faithfulness  to  the  ground,  and  it  accomplished  [its  desire],  and  was  prosperous. 


The  subject,  or  Norn.  of  the  verb  was  placed,  is  NS2  ,  a  host.  For  the 
occasional/em,  gender  of  this  worfl,  see  Isa.  40:  2.  Put  or  place  is  a  very 
common  meaning  of  IPS  ,  as  also  the  kindred  signification  to  appoint,  con 
stitute  ;  see  Lex.  —  b?  over,  in  a  hostile  sense,  implying  that  the  daily 
sacrifice  was  subjected  to  oppressive  and  impious  supervision.  —  sir&a'&y 
wickedness  or  rebellion,  the  abstract  for  the  concrete  =  by  the  wicked  one,  or 
by  the  rebel.  Hence,  in  the  N.  Test.,  2  Thess.  2:  3,  anoGTaaia  (an  ex 
act  version  of  2H2J&),  also  6  av&QWTiog  tys  dpagTiag  ;  and  in  v.  8  (ib.),  o 
avopos  ;  expressions  having  their  basis,  as  I  apprehend,  in  the  verse  be 
fore  us,  and  applied  by  Paul  to  some  personage  of  a  character  similar  to 
that  of  Antiochus.  No  defence  of  this  exegesis  is  needed,  in  regard  to  the 
principle  on  which  it  rests  ;  for  nothing  is  more  frequent  than  a  usage  of 
this  kind  in  the  Bible,  e.  g.  God  is  love.  The  article  is  indeed  omitted  in 
S>%iiS2  ;  but  this  circumstance  is  of  little  or  no  force,  as  it  regards  an  ab 
stract  noun.  The  instances  of  the  omission  of  the  article  in  abstract  nouns, 
are  nearly  three  to  one  of  its  insertion,  according  to  the  result  which  I 
have  before  me,  of  a  somewhat  extensive  register  of  examples  of  each  kind. 
There  is  more  of  the  arbitrary  or  ad  libitum  scriptoris  here,  than  in  almost 
any  other  usage  of  the  Heb.  language.  Nothing  /or  or  against  the  mean 
ing  above  given  to  SfiJB  ,  can  be  made  out  then  from  this  source.  But 
when  the  article  is  omitted  (as  in  fact  it  is)  before  «asi.  at  the  beginning 
of  the  verse,  we  may  well  deem  it  probable  and  even  certain,  that  in  this 
case  the  writer  does  not  mean  to  use  XS:*  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is 
used  in  vs.  10,  11  ;  for  if  he  did,  we  might  then  well  expect  Nssn  ,  i.  e. 
the  host  already  named,  for  so  he  writes  the  word  repeated  in  v.  10.  The 


CHAP.  VIII.  13.  235 

simple  meaning  seems  to  be,  that  Antiochus  would  not  only  maltreat  the 
lawful  priesthood  of  the  temple,  and  rob  God  of  the  daily  offering,  but  also 
that  he  would  put  a  priestly  corps,  i.  e.  a  jsns  of  his  own  in  the  temple,  or, 
in  other  words,  a  band  or  host  who  should  offer  a  T^Pi  in  accordance  with 
the  demands  of  wickedness,  i.  e.  of  an  impious  person.  The  similar  use  of 
Xi^ ,  in  vs.  10, 11,  and  12,  in  such  a  construction,  is  very  obvious.  Hence 
too  the  sequel.  This  new  host,  appointed  by  the  blasphemous  king  to 
offer  swine's  flesh  on  the  altar  of  the  temple,  would  cast  down  to  the  earth 
faithfulness,  i.  e.  (abstract  for  concrete)  the  faithful  servants  of  God,  or  (as 
it  may  mean)  true  religion.  It  is  plain  that  WDK  and  SttjB  stand  in  con 
trast.  The  heathen  servitors  of  the  temple,  while  performing  their  own 
*T1»n ,  would  of  course  interrupt  and  cause  to  cease  the  daily  offerings  re 
quired  by  true  religion,  fpax .  —  ^^  is  breviloquence.  The  noun  to  be 
supplied,  and  which  sometimes  is  expressed,  is  nss  or  "jis^i .  —  Wyk^Wj , 
and  it  was  prosperous  or  successful.  There  is  no  need  of  another  sub 
ject  (T^)  for  the  three  fern,  verbs  ;  for  &ox  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse 
is  treated  as  being  fern.,  and  it  comports  well  with  the  meaning  of  the 
passage  to  continue  the  same  subject  through  the  verse.  It  is  in  substance 
the  same,  however,  if  any  one  prefers  yng  for  the  Norn,  to  these  verbs, 
for  this  designates  Antiochus. 

(13)  And  I  heard  a  holy  one  speaking  ;  and  one  holy  one  said  to  a  certain  one 
who  was  speaking :  Until  when  is  the  vision  —  the  daily  sacrifice,  and  the  wicked  one 
to  be  destroyed,  the  giving  up  of  both  sanctuary  and  host  to  be  trampled  upon  ? 

The  prophet  represents  the  sight  of  what  is  done  at  Jerusalem,  as 
making  its  guardian  angel  strongly  desirous  of  knowing  when  such  abomi 
nations  shall  cease.  Some  angel,  (in  the  train  of  the  angel-interpreter, 
as  it  would  seem),  puts  the  question  to  him.  —  ftS^Ki ,  $  for  a ,  §  10.  2. 
Note  2.  a.  —  ^TobB  designates  individuality,  but  it  is  that  of  a  person 
whose  name  is  not  known;  like  our  English  phrase,  a  certain  per 
son.  The  apparent  article  before  the  Part,  is  here  a  rel.  pronoun,  as 
oftentimes  elsewhere.  —  ^B"^?  >  !&  until  when,  i.  e.  unto  what  time, 
how  long?  —  "ptn-l ,  the  vision,  viz.  that  seen  by  the  prophet,  in  a  gene 
ral  sense.  The  inquiry  is,  to  what  limits  of  time  this  vision  extends.  — 
T^awi  and  siEBft  refer  to  the  same  words  in  v.  12,  and  are  here  co 
ordinate  with  "ptnrt  and  epexegetical  of  it,  being  designed  to  render 
prominent  the  most  interesting  objects  of  the  vision.  —  The  meaning  of 
DBJI3  has  been  much  controverted.  Gesenius  has  given  it  an  active  sense, 
viz.  waster,  destroyer.  I  must  doubt  the  propriety  of  this.  In  all  other 
cases  besides  some  three  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  it  is  clearly  of  a  passive 
tenor ;  and  the  stem  is  intrans.,  and  therefore  kindred  to  a  passive  verb 


236  CHAP.  VIII.  13. 

in  its  meaning.  In  11:  31  the  like  usage  occurs  as  here,  viz.  of  a  noun 
with  the  article,  and  the  Part,  or  participial  adjective  without  it,  name 
ly  Mttfo  flpisn .  This  is  no  strange  phenomenon ;  see  Heb.  Gram. 
§  109.  2.  b.  The  form  trafoa  in  9:  27  and  11:  31, 1  take  to  be  active; 
but  D^tti  means  desolandus,  vastandus,  like  ibi'a  in  Ps.  22:  32,  and  na 
(Part.)  in  Gen.  20: 3.  The  sentiment  then,  expressed  here  and  in  9:  27. 
12: 11,  by  daub,  is  one  of  condemnation,  equivalent  to  which  ought  to  be 
laid  waste  or  destroyed,  or  which  deserves  excision  or  desolation,  vastandus. 
The  article  would  hardly  be  appropriate  to  the  communication  of  this 
meaning,  and  so  it  is  omitted.  If  one  chooses,  he  may  supply  *NEK  be 
fore  datt),  (Ewald's  Gram.  p.  538,  1st  edit.),  which  it  is  common  every 
where  and  often  to  omit.  In  such  a  case,  the  article  would  be  manifestly 
out  of  place,  as  the  Part,  would  be  a  predicate.  But  without  resorting  to 
this  construction,  it  is  not  difficult  to  produce  other  cases  where  the  Part, 
is  associated  with  a  dejinite  noun,  and  yet  has  not  the  article ;  e.  g.  in 
Deut.  28:  31,  32,  are  five  cases  of  participles  anarthrous,  joined  with 
definite  nouns  (made  definite  by  having  sufF.  pronouns),  and  used  in  a  fu 
ture  sense  like  daiu ,  vastandus.  That  passive  participles  have  very  com 
monly  the  meaning  of  the  Latin  participials  in  -dus,  (like  fcfvla,  metuen- 
dus},  is  a  well  established  and  familiar  principle,  §  131.  1.  But  the  ac 
tive  participles  of  intransitive  verbs  may  have  the  same  meaning,  inas 
much  as  these  verbs  rarely  have  but  one  participial  form,  and  the  nature 
of  the  signification  does  not  permit  that  to  be  active  transitive. 

The  last  clause  of  the  verse,  ia"i  nn ,  is  plainly  in  the  same  predica 
ment  as  the  preceding  clause,  viz.  the  daily  sacrifice,  the  wicked  one  to  be 
destroyed,  i.  e.  it  is  coordinate  with  this  clause,  and  also  epexegetical  of 
•jitnii .  In  other  words,  both  of  these  clauses  present  in  particular  the 
prominent  subject-matter  of  the  vision,  or  the  objects  of  special  interest 
which  it  discloses.  The  first  of  the  two  clauses  brings  to  view  the  i^ap} 
and  the  9ttp&  of  v.  12  ;  the  second,  the  N22  and  ufapa  of  vs.  10,11. — 
nn  is  the  well  known  Inf.  of  "(n3 ,  and  is  here  an  Inf.  nominascens,  retaining 
the  Ace.  after  it ;  for  I  take  the  sequel  to  be  the  double  Ace.  after  a  verb 
which  implies  the  making  of  one  kingdom  into  another,  §  136.  2.  e.  g.  So 
far  as  ntj  is  considered  a  noun,  it  (with  its  associates)  is  the  subject  of  a 
sentence,  which  would  run  literally  thus :  « How  long  will  be  the  giving  up 
sanctuary  and  host  as  a  trampling  ?'  For  the  double  Ace.  here,  see 
Ewald's  Gram.  1st  edit.  p.  587.  1.  3.  a.  Only  one  difficulty  remains ; 
which  is,  that  neither  ttHp  nor  Kn^  has  the  article ;  which  we  should 
naturally  expect  in  a  case  like  this,  viz.  one  of  repeated  mention.  Un 
doubtedly  they  might  have  it ;  but  that  it  must  of  necessity  be  added,  can 
hardly  be  made  out  with  much  probability.  Or  rather,  as  the  case  when 


CHAP.  VIII.  14.  237 

more  closely  examined  appears,  the  article  may  well  be  omitted.  As  to 
ttHp,  it  should  be  observed  thatthe  abstract  word  is  here  employed,  which 
more  commonly  omits  the  article,  while  in  v.  11  we  have  i^'npri  'pan . 
That  mp  is  used  in  preference  to  the  phrase  in  v.  1 1 ,'  seems  to  be  a  matter 
of  design,  rather  than  of  accident ;  for  d'njsa  "jl'SE  plainly  designates  the 
temple-building  or  material  temple,  while  irJ'i'p  designates  all  that  is  holy  or 
sacred,  in  a  more  comprehensive  sense,  not  excluding  but  including  the 
temple  and  its  appurtenances,  with  all  that  is  purified  and  consecrated  to 
God  ;  it  is  therefore  abstract  and  generic.  This  enlarged  sense  is  of  course 
intensive  and  more  significant.  As  to  Nix ,  had  the  writer  employed  the 
article  here,  it  would  of  course  have  made  the  word  an  echo  of  the  tflnS 
nearest  to  it,  i.  e.  of  xn^  in  v.  12.  But  this  temple-host  was  the  one 
which  was  placed  there  by  SttJB ,  i.  e.  Antiochus.  The  writer  therefore 
omits  the  article,  and  throws  the  reader  back,  by  means  of  the  preceding 
context  (uHp),  upon  vs.  10, 11,  viz.  iSi  aosn-jri  ns-ix  ^Bni,  as  making 
clear  the  meaning  which  he  attaches  to  xas  here.  As  to  the  first  word 
then  (lanp),  the  article  would  narrow  its  designed  meaning ;  and  as  to  the 
second  (xns),  it  would  be  likely  to  mislead  the  reader.  This  may  ac 
count  for  the  seeming  violation  here  of  ordinary  usage,  in  respect  to  the 
article.  But  beyond  all  this,  as  Ewald,  Gesenius,  and  others  have  re 
marked,  the  later  Hebrew  is  more  various  and  inconstant  with  respect  to 
the  article,  than  the  earlier.  In  Heb.  poetry,  also,  the  omission  of  the 
article  in  cases  where  prose  employs  it,  has  long  been  remarked  by  critics. 
And  although  the  book  before  us  does  not  exhibit  rhythm,  nor  the  usual 
Hebrew  poetic  parallelisms,  it  is  still  instinct  with  poetic  thought  and  dic 
tion. — Shall  be  made  a  Oa"iri ,  i.  e.  lit.  an  object  on  which  one  treads  or 
tramples;  expressive  of  contemptuous  and  abusive  treatment.  Sentiment: 
1  How  long  will  be  the  trampling  of  Antiochus  upon  all  the  objects  which 
are  sacred,  and  upon  those  who  perform  the  holy  offices  of  the  temple  ?' 

(14)  And  he  said  to  me:  Until  two  thousand  and  three  hundred  evening-mornings, 
and  then  shall  that  which  is  holy  be  vindicated. 

Interpreters  are  divided  about  the  meaning  "ip's  a'nsJ .  Some  main 
tain  that  it  designates  merely  the  sacrifice  respectively  of  evening  and  morn 
ing,  (evening  is  put  first,  because  the  Hebrew  day  began  with  evening, 
Gen.  i.).  This  would  make  only  1150  days  of  time,  there  being  two  sacri 
fices  each  day.  But  this  construction  seems  inadmissible,  ijsa  S"nr  have 
no  copula  or  conjunction  between  them;  it  would  seem,  therefore,  to  be 
a  popular  mode  of  compound  expression,  like  to  that  of  the  Greek  w%faf- 
peQOV  (2  Cor.  11:  25),  in  order  to  designate  the  whole  of  the  day.  Com 
pare  Gen.  i.,  where  the  evening  and  morning  constitute  respectively  day 


238  CHAP.  VIII.  14 

the  first,  day  the  second,  etc. ;  for  it  seems  plain  that  the  phraseology  be 
fore  us  is  derived  from  this  source.  In  other  words,  "i^a  s^s  ,  as  here 
employed,  may  be  admitted  to  contain  an  allusion  to  the  morning  and  ev 
ening  sacrifices,  and  thus  the  phrase  virtually  becomes  a  kind  of  substi 
tute  for  lian,  which  is  generic  and  includes  both  the  morning  and 
evening  sacrifice.  To  the  question  then  :  How  long  shall  the  "HWn  be 
taken  away?  (see  in  v.  11),  the  answer  is  in  effect :  During  2300  repe 
titions  of  the  *v*"£fr ,  i.  e.  2300  evening-morning  offerings.  The  time  thus 
designated  is,  as  usual,  in  the  sing,  number ;  while  the  larger  numerals 
are  in  the  plural.  —  And  then  shall  that  which  is  holy  be  vindicated,  p'nsai 
shall  have  justice  done,  i.  e.  the  rights  of  the  sanctuary  shall  be  effectually 
restored,  its  claims  shall  be  vindicated.  This  was  done  when  Judas  Mac- 
cabaeus,  after  the  three  and  a  half  years  in  which  all  temple-rites  had 
been  suspended,  and  heathen  sacrifices  had  been  offered  there,  made  a 
thorough  expurgation  of  everything  pertaining  to  the  temple,  and  re 
stored  its  entire  services.  This  was  on  the  25th  of  Dec.  165  B.  C.,  just 
three  years  from  the  time  when  swine's  flesh  was  first  offered  there  by  An- 
tiochus.  We  have  then  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  2300  days  ;  and  it  is 
not  difficult,  therefore,  to  find  the  terminus  a  quo.  These  days,  at  30  in 
a  month  (which  is  clearly  the  prophetic  mode  of  reckoning),  make  6  years, 
4  months,  and  twenty  days.  Dec.  25  of  171  makes  six  years,  and  the  four 
months  and  twenty  days  will  bring  the  time  to  the  latter  half  of  July  in 
the  same  year,  i.  e.  171  B.  C.  During  this  year,  Menelaus,  the  high- 
priest  appointed  by  Antiochus  on  the  ground  of  a  proffered  bribe,  rifled 
the  temple  of  many  of  its  treasures  in  order  to  pay  that  bribe,  and  in  this 
transaction  he  was  assisted  by  his  brother  Lysimachus.  The  regular  and 
lawful  high-priest,  Onias  III,  who  had  been  removed,  severely  reproved 
this  sacrilege  committed  by  his  brethren  ;  and  afterward,  through  fear  of 
them,  fled  for  refuge  to  Daphne,  an  asylum  near  Antioch  in  Syria. 
,j  Thence  he  was  allured  by  the  false  promises  of  Menelaus,  and  perfidi 
ously  murdered  by  the  king's  lieutenant,  Andronicus.  See  the  whole 
story  in  2  Mace.  4:  27  seq.  The  Jews  at  Jerusalem,  incensed  by  the  vio 
lent  death  of  their  lawful  high-priest,  and  by  the  sacrilegious  robberies  of 
Menelaus  and  Lysimachus,  became  tumultuous,  and  a  severe  contest  took 
place  between  them  and  the  adherents  of  those  who  committed  the  rob 
bery,  in  which  the  patriotic  Jews  at  last  gained  the  victory,  and  Lysima 
chus  was  slain  at  the  treasury.  This  was  the  first  contest  that  took  place, 
between  the  friends  of  Antiochus  and  the  adherents  to  the  Hebrew  laws 
and  usages.  The  whole  of  it  was  occasioned  by  the  baseness  of  Antiochus, 
in  accepting  bribes  for  bestowing  the  office  of  high  priest  on  those  who 
had  no  just  claim  to  it.  The  payment  of  the  bribes  occasioned  the  rob- 


CHAP.  VIII.  15.  239 

bing  of  the  temple  and  the  sacrilege  committed  there ;  and  this  was  the 
commencement  of  that  long  series  of  oppression,  persecution,  and  blood 
shed,  which  took  place  in  the  sequel  under  Antiochus. 

We  have,  indeed,  no  data  in  ancient  history  by  which  the  very  day,  v 
or  even  month,  connected  with  the  transactions  above  related  can  be  ex 
actly  ascertained.  But  the  year  is  certain  ;  and  as  the  time  seems  to  be 
definite  in  our  text,  the  fair  presumption  is,  that  the  outbreak  of  the 
populace,  and  the  battle  that  followed,  constitutes  the  terminus  a  quo  of 
the  2300  days.  See  Froelich,  Annales  Reg.  Syr.  p.  46 ;  and  also  Ush 
er's  Chronol.  The  first  of  these  two  solid  and  excellent  writers,  has 
taken  the  most  pains  to  enucleate  the  Syrian  history,  and  is  the  most  to 
be  relied  upon.  Both  depend  mainly  on  2  Mace.  4:  39 — 42  as  their 
source ;  where  the  time  is  not  specifically  noted.  But  Froelich  seems 
most  thoroughly  and  accurately  to  have  developed  the  course  of  events. 

As  to  the  difference  between  the  time  here,  viz.  2300  days,  and  the  •/• 
three  and  a  half  years  in  7:  25,  if  the  reader  narrowly  inspects  the  latter, 
he  will  perceive,  that  the  time  there  specified  has  relation  to  the  period 
during  which  Antiochus  entirely  prohibited  the  Jewish  religion  in  every 
shape.  This  period,  as  is  well  known,  corresponds  with  historical  facts. 
In  the  passage  before  us,  a  more  extensive  series  of  events  is  comprised, 
as  vs.  10 — 12  indicate.  They  begin  with  assaults  on  the  priesthood, 
(which  we  have  seen  to  be  matter  of  fact,  as  stated  above),  and  end  with 
the  desecration  and  prostration  of  all  that  is  sacred  and  holy.  It  is  un 
necessary  to  show  that  each  of  the  things  described  belongs  to  each  and 
every  part  of  the  2300  days.  Enough  that  the  events  are  successive, 
and  spread  over  the  time  specified  in  our  text.  The  trampling  down  or 
degradation  of  the  priesthood  and  the  sanctuary  commenced  the  whole 
series  of  oppression  and  persecution  ;  and  this  with  most  aggravated  acts 
of  sacrilege  and  blasphemy,  was  also  the  consummation  of  the  tyrant's 
outrages. 

(15)  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  while  I  was  beholding,  I  Daniel,  the  vision,  that  I 
sought  for  the  meaning ;  and  lo !  there  was  one  standing  before  me  like  the  appear 
ance  of  a  man. 

Above  (v.  13)  an  angel  asks  a  question  of  another.  Here  by  subjoin 
ing  I  Daniel,  the  contrast  is  made  more  striking  between  the  present  and 
the  former  inquirer.  —  ^niana ,  Inf.  of  nsn  with  suff.  prononn.  —  I  Dan 
iel  is  virtually  the  repetition  of  that  pronoun,  in  another  form  which 
makes  the  expression  more  intensive.  —  I  sought  the  meaning  or  a  mean 
ing  as  the  Heb.  runs.  The  fi-  here  appended  to  the  verb,  denotes  an 
effort  or  inclination  to  seek,  §  126.  1.  a.  Our  idiom  would  employ  the 
meaning  in  such  a  relation  as  that  in  which  the  noun  n:na  stands.  — 


240  CHAP.  VIH.  16,  17. 

•••fS^ ,  before  me,  i.  e.  within  his  view ;  for  that  the  angel  was  as  yet  at 
some  distance  from  Daniel  appears  from  v.  17.  This  angel  is  the 
"la'tsrt  ""STabB  of  v.  13,  and  the  Gabriel  of  v.  16.  —  Like  the  appearance 
of  a  man  is  designedly  so  expressed,  in  order  to  indicate  that  the  angel 
assumed  a  human  form  only  for  the  time  being,  or  in  appearance  only,  and 
not  in  reality.  This  is  common  throughout  the  Bible,  when  angels  make 
their  appearance;  e.  g.  Gen.  18:  2,  16.  Josh.  5:  13.  Judg.  13:  10,  11. 
Luke  24:  4,  etc.  —  iaa ,  used  rarely  out  of  the  poetic  and  prophetic  books, 
but  very  common  in  Aramaean.  The  stem  of  this  word  denotes  being 
strong,  powerful ;  and  probably  in  the  passage  before  us,  the  idea  of  a 
strong  and  powerful  man,  in  accordance  with  the  etymology  of  the  word, 
is  intended  to  be  retained. 

(16)  Arid  I  heard  the  voice  of  a  man  between  the  Ulai,  and  he  cried  aloud  and  said : 
Gabriel,  explain  to  this  person  the  vision. 

The  voice  of  a  man  here  means  a  voice  like  that  of  a  man,  i.  e.  the  angel 
spake  more  humano.  Who  this  angel  was,  is  not  said ;  and  the  conjec 
tures  that  he  was  the  Messiah  (Theod.),  or  Michael  (the  Rabbins),  are 
useless  and  inapposite.  Between  the  Ulai  can  mean,  as  the  word  "pa 
naturally  indicates,  only  between  the  two  sides  or  banks  of  the  Ulai.  — 
&O!?!]  denotes  the  loudness  or  distinctness  with  which  the  words  were 
spoken,  —  tlsnb ,  §  34.  Note  1.  —  «"i&pBin  is  the  equivalent  of  "pin .  Len- 
gerke  says,  that  the  name  Gabriel,  or  rather  the  idea  of  seven  presence- 
angels^  is  borrowed  from  Parsism.  But  "  the  angel  of  his  presence"  is 
no  late  idea  among  the  Hebrews ;  the  Pent,  often  discloses  it.  Out  of 
the  book  of  Daniel,  it  is  not  usual  in  the  0.  Test,  to  give  proper  names 
to  angels.  But  Gabriel  occurs  also  in  Dan.  9:  21,  and  in  Luke  1:  19, 
26  ;  and  so  in  the  book  of  Enoch,  9:  1.  20:  1.  The  angel  must  have 
been  high  in  station,  in  order  that  he  should  give  commands,  as  here,  to 
Gabriel. 

(17)  And  he  came  near  to  where  I  stood,  and  when  he  came  I  was  terrified,  and  I 
fell  upon  my  face;  and  he  said  to  me:  Son  of  man,  mark  well  that  the  vision  is  for 
the  time  of  the  end. 

Almost  everywhere  in  the  Scriptures,  the  vision  of  God  or  of  angels 
is  represented  as  producing  agitation,  consternation,  or  even  swooning ; 
Gen.  15:J.2,  comp.  JoM:  13  seq.  Gen.  16:  13.  32:  30.  Deut.  18:  16. 
Judg.  6:  22.  13:  22.  Isa.  6:  5.  Luke  1:  12,  29.  2:  9.  Acts  9:  3,  8,  etc.— 
1FIS3? ,  Niph.  of  n§a ,  the  n  with  Dagh.  forte  comprising  n  of  the  stem 
and  n  of  the  formative  suffix,  §  20.  1.  a.  —  The  time  of  the  end  presents 
more  difficulty  than  one  might  at  first  suspect.  End  of  what  ?  Of  An- 
tiochus  ?  Or  of  a  troublous  state  of  things  ?  Or  end  of  the  world  ?  Not 


CHAP.  VIII.  18,  19.  241 

merely  of  Antiochus  ;  for  his  importance,  as  exhibited  in  the  book  of 
Daniel,  arises  principally  from  his  power  to  annoy  the  people  of  God. 
Not  the  end  of  the  world  ;  for  in  chap.  viii.  no  Messianic  period  is  devel 
oped  at  the  close  of  its  predictions,  and  yet  the  Messianic  reign  is  itself 
the  end  or  last  time  of  the  world.  V.  19  gives  us  perhaps  some  light; 
DSjri  rvnnxa,  in  the  latter  time  of  the  indignation,  i.  e.  in  the  latter  time 
of  afflictions  permitted  to  be  brought  upon  Israel,  because  of  the  divine 
indignation  against  their  sins.  The  vision  itself  in  fact  reaches  only  to 
the  end  of  those  special  afflictions,  that  are  to  come  on  the  people  of  the 
Jews  before  the  Messianic  period,  and  which  are  made  the  subject  of 
prophecy  because  of  their  importance.  The  warning  to  mark  well  or 
consider  the  vision,  because  it  discloses  these  afflictions,  connects  itself 
of  course  with  a  supposed  importance  attached  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
final  special  troubles  of  the  Jews  before  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  The 
Rabbins  call  those  troubles 


(18)  And  while  he  was  speaking  with  me,  I  was  in  a  deep  sleep  upon  my  face,  on 
the  earth,  and  he  touched  me,  and  made  me  to  stand  up  in  my  place. 

ipnsipa  I  have  expressed  by  circumlocution,  for  we  cannot  imitate  the 
Niph.  Conj.  here.  DTI  means  to  snore,  and  then  to  be  in  a  deep  sleep  or 
stupor.  Daniel,  however,  does  not  mean  to  assert  that  he  was  literally 
asleep  in  the  common  way,  but  that  he  was  in  so  deep  a  swoon  as  to  lose 
all  sensation  and  perception  of  outward  objects,  and  to  be  stretched  out 
helpless  upon  the  ground.  But  the  power  of  the  angel's  touch  revived 
him,  and  enabled  him  to  stand  up. 

(  19  )  And  he  said  :  Behold  !  I  will  make  thee  to  know  what  shall  take  place  in  the 
latter  period  of  the  indignation;  for  at  an  appointed  time  is  the  end. 


13317,  Dagh.  f.  omitted  in  the  first  3  ,  §  20.  3.  Remarks.  —  ^S^to,  Part. 
Hiph.  of  s^  ,  here,  as  often  elsewhere,  used  like  the  Latin  Fut.  in  — 
rus.  —  The  latter  period  of  the  indignation  implies,  that  the  whole  period 
is  to  continue  for  sometime,  for  p^nx  denotes  only  the  latter  part  of  it. 
The  meaning  of  cst  here  must  be  made  out  from  the  context.  Vs.  10 
—  14  show  that  God  will  give  up  his  people,  city,  and  even  sanctuary, 
for  a  time,  to  a  wicked  oppressor  and  invader  —  designated  by  SITE)  in  v. 
12.  The  coming  or  happening  of  special  evil  is  everywhere,  in  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  spoken  of  as  the  effect  of  divine  displeasure,  and  not 
unnaturally,  therefore,  is  often  named  the  wrath  of  God,  in  the  O.  Test 
and  in  the  New  ;  e.  g.  Isa.  10:  5,  25.  26:  20.  30:  27.  Matt.  3:  7.  Rom. 
1:  18.  2:  5.  Eph.  2:  3.  5:  6.  Col.  3:  6.  Rev.  11:  18.  From  this  familiar 
idiom  it  comes,  that  the  writer  has  put  the  article  before  DSt  ,  i.  e.  he 

21 


242  CHAP.  VIII.  20,  21. 

takes  it  for  granted,  that  the  reader  will  refer  the  or  that  indignation  to 
the  same  which  has  already  been  described  in  the  context.  It  plainly 
means  here  the  season  of  indignation  on  the  part  of  God,  who  gives  up 
his  people  to  punishment,  because  they  have  sinned  against  him.  Above, 
in  v.  14,  a  set  time  (==  "i2p£)  is  named,  (viz.  2300  days),  when  deliver 
ance  from  the  scourge  will  be  granted.  That  which  is  to  take  place 
near  the  close  of  the  indignation-period,  (rvpnsto),  is  the  most  prominent 
thing  in  the  prophetic  vision,  and  that  which  Daniel  and  the  Jewish 
people  were  most  interested  to  know.  That  ^52  is  the  subject  of  the 
clause,  and  that  the  verb  of  existence  is  implied  after  it,  seems  to  be 
clear,  because,  if  we  translate  the  clause  thus,  for  an  appointed  time  of 
an  end,  and  ask  the  question  :  What  is  for  an  appointed  time  ?  the  con 
text  gives  us  no  answer.  I  take  ]"£  to  be  equivalent  to  our  phrase  final 
issue,  and  usually  involving  the  idea  of  such  an  issue  in  the  way  of  judg 
ment  or  punishment.  In  like  manner  is  it  employed  in  Dan.  9:  26, 
where  it  appears  to  be  twice  applied  to  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes.  The  like  also  in  8:  17,  i.  e.  in  our  immediate  context.  That 
the  angel  calls  the  special  attention  of  Daniel  to  this  topic,  (both  in  vs. 
17  and  19),  and  mentions  only  this,  shows,  beyond  any  good  reason  for 
doubt,  that  the  times  and  punishment  of  Antiochus  —  the  man  of  sin 
Snra  ,  the  hta?  —  constitute  the  burden  of  the  vision  just  related.  That 
other  matters  respecting  the  Medo-Persian  dynasty,  that  of  Alexander, 
and  of  his  successors,  are  touched  upon,  seems  to  be  mainly  because  they 
stand  historically  connected  with  the  dynasty  of  Antiochus. 

(20)  The  ram  which  them  sawest  having  two  horns,  is  the  kings  of  Media  and 
Persia. 


i?^  in  pause,  see  for  the  form  v.  3.  above.  —  Is  the  kings,  etc.,  the 
verb  is,  as  usual,  being  implied.  I  have  employed  the  verb  singular,  be 
cause  b"x  is  its  more  immediate  subject.  Here  also,  as  in  cases  almost 
without  number,  the  verb  is  plainly  conveys  the  same  sense  as  repre 
sents,  symbolizes,  means,  etc.  —  The  kings  of  Media  and  Persia,  i.  e.  the 
continued  dynasty  of  Medo-Persian  kings;  and  this  of  course  is  as  much 
as  to  say,  the  Medo-Persian  empire,  for  kings  are  the  representatives  of 
empire,  or  efficient  agents  in  establishing  and  preserving  it. 

(21)  And  the  he-goat  is  a  king  of  Greece;  and  as  to  the  large  horn  between  its 
eyes  —  this  is  the  first  king. 

Kin  masc.,  because  V3E  ,  although  regularly  fern.,  designates  in  this 
place  a  Hng.  It  should  be  noted,  also,  that  here  is  only  one  horn,  which 
represents  Alexander  as  sole  king  of  the  empire  here  in  question.  When 
this  is  broken,  another  empire  of  a  different  kind  arises  out  of  its  ruins  ; 


CHAP.  VIII.  22.  243 

comp.  11:  4,  where  this  view  of  the  matter  is  fully  expressed.  First  king 
does  not  necessarily  imply  that  there  were  other  kings  of  the  same  stamp 
or  condition  after  him,  any  more  than  j6rs£  born  necessarily  implies  that 
there  are  other  children  of  the  same  parents.  In  Mace.  1:1  it  is  said  of 
Alexander  :  '  EfiaG&svcs  TT  OOTSQO  $  em  ir\v 


(22)  And  as  to  the  [horn]  that  was  broken,  and  there  stood  up  four  in  the  room 
thereof  —  four  kingdoms  from  the  nation  shall  arise,  but  not  with  his  power. 


,  fern.  Part.  Niph.  agreeing  with  yn^  implied,  and  so  of  the 
same  number  and  gender.  —  On  the  other  hand,  Jis'iBS'ft  is  3  plur.  fern. 
Imperf.,  and  agrees  with  o^p  implied.  —  In  the  room  of  it,  i.  e.  in  the  room 
of  the  great  horn,  which  has  now  become  broken.  —  nl^bis,  plur.  of 
ntob-a,  see  §  86.  2.  —  ilrra  ,  without  the  article,  \it.from  a  nation.  Had 
the  article  been  employed  in  Hebrew,  it  must  refer  either  to  a  previous 
mention  of  iia,  (which  does  not  exist  here),  or  else  to  the  Gentiles  (ja 
sftvr/)  collectively,  in  distinction  from  the  Jews.  This  last  meaning  is 
not  that  which  the  writer  intends  to  convey.  He  means  a  [heathen]  na 
tion,  but  not  the  whole  mass  of  the  heathen.  Still,  in  English  we  cannot 
follow  exactly  in  his  steps  ;  for  a  nation  would  with  us  be  too  indefinite, 
and  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  writer  was  uncertain  from  what  quar 
ter  the  four  kingdoms  would  spring  up.  I  have  therefore  rendered  ^'iao 
from  the  nation  ;  and  the  meaning  is,  from  the  heathen  nation  once  ruled  by 
the  great  horn.  —  i"i3"ra?.?  ,  Imperf.  3  pi.  fern.,  with  fern,  suffix  formative, 
and  ("\)  praefix  as  if  masc.  Two  cases  of  the  same  kind  we  find  else 
where,  viz.  Frt-crn  in  Gen.  30:  38,  and  fia'TE';  in  1  Sam.  6:  12,  both  having 
fern,  subjects  ;  see  Ges.  Lehrgeb.  §  81.  2.  In  Syr.,  Chald.,  and  Arab., 
the  3d  fern.  plur.  is  formed  in  the  same  way.  Is  our  text  then  an  over 
sight  of  transcribers,  who  unconsciously  followed  some  of  the  kindred  lan 
guages  with  which  they  were  familiar?  Or  is  it  merely  Chaldaizing  He 
brew,  which  the  original  writer  may  have  employed  ?  With  certainty  we 
cannot  decide  ;  but  I  should,  on  the  whole,  rather  incline  to  the  latter  sup 
position.  —  But  not  in  his  strength,  i.  e.  not  with  the  power  or  might  of  the 
great  horn  ;  for  none  of  the  four  kingdoms  were  equal  in  power  to  that  of 
Alexander.  The  suffix  1-  is  masc.,  but  still  there  is  concord  ad  sensum, 
for  horn  symbolizes  a  king.  If  the  reader  has  any  doubt  whether  the 
breaking  of  the  great  horn  here,  and  the  standing  up  of  four  others  in  its 
room,  indicates  a  transition  from  a  third  dynasty  to  a  fourth,  a  comparison 
of  this  verse  with  11:4  may  help  to  solve  that  doubt.  In  fact,  I  know  riot 
how  language  could  more  plainly  ard  definitely  express  the  idea  of  a 
transition  from  one  dynasty  to  another,  than  the  language  of  Dan.  11:  4 


244  CHAP.  VIII.  23. 

has  done.   That  in  both  passages  the  same  succession  is  under  considera 
tion,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

(23)  And  in  the  latter  part  of  their  reign,  when  transgressors  shall  have  come  to 
the  full,  there  shall  stand  up  a  king  of  stern  aspect  and  skilled  in  fraudulent  devices. 


-ittX2  cannot  be  properly  rendered  (with  Havernick)  toward  the  end. 
It  must  mean  during  the  latter  part  or  portion.  —  In  snsobE  ,  the  suf 
fix  must  be  referred  to  the  kingdoms  that  rise  up  after  the  great  horn  is 
broken.  Does  the  writer  mean  to  convey  the  idea,  that  all  four  of  the  dy 
nasties  which  followed  that  of  Alexander,  are  to  be  brought  into  account 
here,  or  only  the  leading  portion  of  them,  viz.  Syria  and  Egypt  ?  If  we 
may  bring  ch.  xi.  to  bear  upon  this  question,  the  answer  will  of  course  be: 
The  two  dynasties  just  named;  for  of  them  almost  exclusively  does  the 
author  speak  in  the  eleventh  chapter.  Besides,  these  were  the  firmest 
and  most  lasting  of  all.  In  particular,  with  respect  to  Syria,  the  era  of 
Seleucus  Nicator  (its  first  king  in  the  Grecian  line)  begins  with  B.  C.  312, 
and  Antiochus  commenced  his  reign  in  175  B.  C.  The  decline  of  the 
Syrian  empire  was  hastened  by  his  defeat  and  death  ;  and  although  it  had 
a  nominal  existence,  down  to  the  time  when  Pompey  overran  that  region, 
yet  it  was  in  the  hands  of  incompetent  persons  or  foreigners,  so  that  it 
was  but  little  accounted  of.  It  was  then  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  that 
the  dominion  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  commenced  during  the  latter  part 
of  the  Syrian  dynasty,  whether  we  have  respect  to  time  or  to  the  declin 
ing  state  of  the  government,  in  computing  such  a  period.  Lengerke  as 
serts,  without  any  qualification,  that  the  writer  supposed  Antiochus  to  be 
the  last  of  the  Syrian  kings,  or  that  with  him  the  Syrian  dominion  would 
fall,  and  the  times  of  the  Messiah  immediately  succeed.  I  cannot  regard 
n-nnx  as  being  so  narrowly  restricted.  The  ftt*rt  ^^.rix  so  often  em 
ployed  to  designate  the  latter  period  of  the  world  in  which  the  Messiah 
would  make  his  appearance,  is  surely  not  confined  to  narrow  limits. 
Enough,  that  in  the  declining  part  of  the  Syrian  empire,  the  tyrant  and 
persecutor,  described  in  the  sequel,  came  to  the  throne.  The  blow  had 
already  been  struck  by  the  Romans,  in  their  defeat  of  Antiochus  the 
Great,  which  inflicted  a  wound  on  the  Syrian  dominion  that  was  never 
to  be  cured.  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  by  his  wiles  and  stratagems,  sustained 
himself  for  a  while.  But  before  his  death,  the  virtual  dissolution  of  his 
empire  seemed  to  be  at  hand.  I  do  not  feel,  therefore,  any  necessity  of 
interpreting  the  passage,  in  respect  to  r^nx  ,  as  Lengerke  would  have 
us.  —  As  to  the  immediate  coming  of  the  Messiah,  after  the  defeat  and 
death  of  Antiochus,  is  it  not  strange,  if  the  author  of  the  book  of  Daniel 


CHAP.  VIII.  23.  2.45 

wrote  after  that  period,  (which  Lengerke  maintains),  that  he  should  have 
suggested  such  a  sentiment,  when  his  own  observation  would  itself  have 
contradicted  it  ?  In  reality,  however,  the  developments  of  this  nature,  in 
the  book  of  Daniel,  stand  on  common  ground  with  those  of  Isaiah  and 
other  prophets,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  in  the  sequel.  If  what  is  said 
in  relation  to  this  subject  by  the  book  of  Daniel,  will  serve  as  an  argu 
ment  to  show  that  the  book  was  not  written  by  that  prophet,  then  what 
Isaiah  and  other  prophets  have  said  in  the  like  way  will  serve  to  show 
that  their  works  are  not  genuine.  What  proves  too  much,  does  not  go 
current  among  logicians  as  sound  argument. 

In  regard  to  disizS&Jr  onro ,  when  the  transgressors  shall  have  come  to 
the  full,  i.  e.  completed  the  full  measure  of  their  iniquity,  I  understand 
this  as  having  respect  to  apostatizing  Jews,  who,  in  the  time  of  Antio- 
chus  Epiphanes,  forsook  their  laws  and  usages,  and  after  obtaining  the 
approbation  of  Antiochus,  introduced  heathen  rites  and  usages  among  the 
Hebrews,  and  even  built  a  heathen  gymnasium  for  their  games  in  Jeru 
salem.  See  a  full  account  in  1  Mace.  1:  11  seq.,  where  the  writer 
doubtless  with  his  eye  upon  DijfljJBfi  here,  calls  them  naQavoiioi. 
The  same  occurrence  is  in  view  in  v.  19  above,  where  the  time  of 
the  indignation  is  spoken  of.  God  gave  up  the  Jews  to  chastisement 
by  the  hands  of  the  '  stern-visaged  and  wily  king.'  It  would  seem 
that  the  inclination  to  apostatize  already  existed  among  many  of  the 
Jews,  before  Antiochus  intermeddled  with  their  concerns.  His  rising 
up  ("ib:^)  does  not  here  so  much  designate  his  mere  accession  to  the 
throne,  as  his  becoming  the  active  enemy  and  oppressor  of  the  Jews. 
This  he  began  to  be,  as  soon  as  the  pious  Jews  began  to  oppose  the 
heathenish  innovations  which  his  partisans  introduced  among  them.  — 
n'OB  T2  might  mean  of  an  impudent  look,  but  here  his  sternness  and  cruelty 
are  more  probably  intended  to  be  characterized,  as  in  Deut.  28:  50,  and 
so  I  have  translated  it  stern  of  aspect ;  comp.  7: 19,  23,  25.  11:  33.  That 
Antiochus,  with  all  his  extravagance  and  follies,  had  much  craftiness  and 
subtlety,  and  often  brought  about  his  designs  by  means  of  flattery  and 
cunning —  nv-nn  ^30  —  appears  abundantly  from  11:  21—23,  25,  32. 
The  same  character  is  given  him  in  Polyb.  Reliq.  XXXI,  5.  Appian,  de 
Reb.  Syr.  XLV.  See  also  1  Mace.  1: 30  seq.  2  Mace.  5:  24—26.  To 
the  Roman  ambassadors  he  professed  great  regard  and  friendship  for  the 
Romans,  while  he  acted  in  a  manner  directly  the  contrary.  Eumenes 
and  Attalus,  kings  of  Pergamos,  he  won  over  to  his  cause  by  flattery  and 
fair  promises,  so  that  they  aided  in  dethroning  Heliodorus,  and  in  oppos 
ing  the  claims  of  the  Egyptian  Ptolemy  to  the  throne  of  Syria.  The 
same  Ptolemy,  his  nephew,  he  inveigled  and  deceived  by  pretences  of 

21* 


246  CHAP.  VIII.  24,  25. 

interposing  in  the  affairs  of  Egypt  for  his  benefit,  while  his  real  object 
was  plunder  ;  see  Dan.  11:  25.  Finally,  he  took  possession  of  Jerusalem 
by  stratagem  and  fraud,  (tldtycev  avroTg  tiyovg  dQ^vixovg  iv  dol.cp, 
1  Mace.  1:  30,  comp.  2  Mace.  5:  24—26)  ;  so  that  the  most  conspicuous 
parts  of  his  character,  cruelty  and  fraud,  are  developed  in  our  text. 

(24)  And  his  strength  will  wax  mighty,  and  yctnot  by  his  own  strength  ;  and  won 
derfully  will  he  destroy,  and  prosper  in  his  undertaking,  yea,  he  will  destroy  many, 
even  the  people  of  the  saints. 

Tet  not  by  his  own  strength,  [but  by  the  might  which  God  gives  him], 
is  the  antithesis  which  Havernick  finds  here ;  and  so  Theodoret,  Ephrem 
Syrus,  and  some  others.  This  sense,  when  the  expression  is  taken  in  a 
modified  way,  is  not  in  itself  objectionable  ;  but  it  seems  more  probable 
that  the  speaker  means  to  say,  that  Antiochus  will  not  be  potent  on  the 
ground  of  real  and  proper  strength  of  dominion,  but  on  the  ground  of  the 
artifice  and  cunning  so  conspicuously  exhibited  in  the  preceding  verse,  and 
in  the  other  passages  there  alluded  to.  In  what  respects  the  accomplish 
ment  of  his  designs  by  power  was  manifested,  the  sequel  informs  us.  — 
rvisbB? ,  Part.  plur.  used  adverbially,  §  98.  2.  c.  —  mrr^  is  here  em 
ployed  absolutely,  i.  e.  without  any  following  Ace.  case.  —  hiss1!  rrbxrn  , 
two  verbs  in  one  idea,  either  of  which  may  be  rendered  adverbially  ;  see 
§  139.  3,  and  4.  Note  1.  We  might,  therefore,  here  translate  :  And  he 
shall  execute  [his  designs]  prosperously.  I  prefer,  however,  the  transla 
tion  exhibited  above ;  which  is  equally  correct,  and  renders  the  supple 
ment  of  a  noun  unnecessary.  A  literal  translation  our  idiom  will  not 
well  bear.  I  take  fii^  to  be  oftentimes  a  constructio  praegnans  in  this 
book,  the  full  form  of  which  is  given  in  11:  36,  "ia's^a  ^:^?1  >  he  shall  do 
according  to  his  pleasure.  —  D^'Enxs ,  more  usually  means  mighty  or  great ; 
here  it  refers  to  greatness  of  numbers,  and  means  many.  If  the  mighty 
were  meant,  the  article  would  of  course  be  inserted.  —  D^iihjs  esi  is 
epexegetical,  particularizing  the  pious  Jews.  The  Jewish  nation,  as  con 
secrated  to  God,  are  called  la'ip  and  d^'Jlp ,  not  unfrequently  in  the 
sacred  books.  It  is  not  particularly  to  the  speaker's  purpose  here,  to  de 
scribe  the  slaughter  which  Antiochus  perpetrated  among  the  heathen 
nations  abroad.  Of  course  the  people  of  the  saints  must  here  mean  the 
pious  Jews,  because  the  speaker  has  already  spoken  of  the  d^'irs  among 
them,  v.  23. 

(25)  And  because  of  his  cunning,  he  will  render  deceit  prosperous  in  his  hand,  and 
in  his  own  heart  will  he  magnify  himself,  and  unexpectedly  will  he  destroy  many  ; 
moreover  against  the  Prince  of  princes  will  he  stand  up,  and  without  hand  [of  man] 
shall  he  be  utterly  destroyed. 

None  of  the  ancient  translations  appear  to  have  understood  this  verse, 


CHAP.  VIII.  25.  247 

at  least  the  first  clause  of  it,  and  they  have  therefore  rendered  it  in  a  va 
riety  of  ways.  The  difficulty  seems  to  have  been  with  ibsto ,  which  is 
commonly  used  in  a  good  sense,  e.  g.  wisdom,  discretion,  etc.  ;  but  it  is 
also  capable  of  a  different  meaning,  viz.  cunning,  sagacity,  in  doing  evil 
as  well  as  good ;  like  Luke  16:  8,  "The  children  of  this  world  are  wiser 
(cpQOvi[.ic0T£Qoi)  in  their  generation  than  the  children  of  light,"  i.  e.  more 
sagacious,  dexterous.  In  fact  ^Dto  is  dexterity  or  sagacity  simply ;  and 
thus  being  generic,  it  may  be  used  in  a  sense  either  good  or  bad.  In 
respect  to  historical  facts  which  illustrate  this,  they  have  already  been 
adverted  to  in  the  preceding  verse.  —  ^^ ,  magnify,  and  as  no  other 
object  is  here  supplied,  the  verb  itself  supplies  one,  viz.  magnify  himself. 
How  characteristic  this  is  of  Antiochus,  all  who  have  read  his  history 
must  know.  —  FtJ^a ,  lit.  in  peace  ;  but  the  Hebrew  employs  this  ex 
pression  to  designate  the  idea  of  suddenly,  unexpectedly,  i.  e.  in  a  way  which 
such  as  were  in  quietude  were  not  aware  of.  In  the  same  manner  is  the 
word  employed  in  11:  21,  24;  and  so  nibira  in  Job  15:  21.  In  Syriac 
and  Chaldee  is  the  same  usage.  Still  the  idea  of  peaceful  pretences 
seems  to  be  included.  A  full  exegesis  of  this  is  found  in  the  narration  in 
1  Mace.  1:  30  seq.  :  "  He  [the  military  tribute-collector  of  Antiochus] 
spoke  to  them  [of  Jerusalem]  peaceful  words  .  . .  and  he  fell  upon  the 
city  suddenly,  and  smote  it  with  great  slaughter,  and  destroyed  much  peo 
ple  of  Israel."  —  And  against  the  Prince  of  princes  shall  he  stand  up,  is 
designed  to  render  the  narration  climactic.  Not  only  does  the  impious 
tyrant  destroy  the  people  of  God,  but  sets  himself  in  array  against  God 
himself.  So  in  vs.  10,  11,  above.  —  *n  GSxa,  lit.  without  hand,  which 
plainly  means,  without  the  interposition  of  human  power.  —  "i?^ »  lit. 
shall  be  broken  in  pieces.  The  language  is  adapted  to  the  symbol,  viz.  the 
little  horn.  The  meaning  is,  totally  destroyed.  Facts  correspond.  Ac 
cording  to  history,  Antiochus,  after  marching  into  Persia,  and  robbing  the 
temple  at  Elymais,  was  driven  away  by  popular  tumult ;  and  on  his  re 
turn  back  towards  Syria,  he  was  met  with  the  news  of  the  total  defeat  of 
his  army  in  Judea,  and  of  the  restoration  of  the  temple  services  there. 
Polybius  (XXXI.  11)  says  of  him,  that  "  he  fell  mad  (dai^ovr^ag)  and 
died  ;"  1  Mace.  6: 8  relates,  that  he  fell  sick  of  grief  for  his  losses  ;  Ap- 
pian  (De  Reb.  Syr.  LXVI)  says  simply  :  y&wtav  iT&evrrjae.  Various 
shades  are  given  to  the  picture  by  the  different  writers  ;  e.  g.  in  1  Mace. 
6:  8  seq.,  which  narrates  his  penitent  confessions.  But  these  have  a 
strong  tinge  of  Jewish  coloring.  So  much  is  undoubtedly  true,  viz.  that 
he  perished  suddenly  by  a  violent  sickness,  during  which  he  probably  fell 
into  a  state  of  mania.  He  died,  therefore,  without  violence  by  the  hand  of 
man,  and  so  as  to  make  a  deep  impression  of  perishing  by  a  peculiar  visi 
tation  of  God. 


248  CHAP.  VIII.  26. 

(26)  And  as  to  the  vision  of  the  morning  and  the  evening,  which  was  declared,  it  is 
truth ;  do  thou  then  seal  up  the  vision,  since  it  appertaineth  to  many  days. 

The  vision  respecting  the  evening  and  the  morning,  (for  this  is  the  mean 
ing  of  the  expression),  is  exhibited  in  v.  14  above.  As  it  there  follows 
all  the  symbols  which  the  prophet  had  seen,  so  the  same  order  is  here 
observed.  The  symbols  are  first  explained  or  applied,  and  then  the 
speaker  touches  upon  the  period  of  2300  evening-mornings,  i.  e.  days, 
which  had  been  fixed  as  the  limits  of  Antiochus'  persecution  and  op 
pression,  the  cleansing  of  the  sanctuary  (v.  14)  being  constituted  the 
terminus  ad  quem  of  that  tyrant's  domination  in  Judea.  By  declaring 
with  emphasis,  that  the  vision  respecting  time  is  true  (rvex  truth},  the 
speaker  means  to  call  attention  to  the  determined  and  unalterable  pur 
pose  of  God,  that  the  siBB  — »<~i!!S?  —  E"'??  t?  —  in  question  should  not  go 
beyond  his  defined  limits.  —  Seal  up  the  vision  presupposes  that  Daniel  is 
to  commit  it  to  writing.  To  seal  up  would  be  to  guard  it  against  change 
or  interpolation,  and  so  to  preserve  its  integrity.  The  idea  of  safe  keeping 
by  sealing  up,  is  plain  in  Deut.  32:  34.  Jer.  32: 14.  Of  course,  access  to 
a  writing  is  prevented  by  sealing  it,  as  inlsa.  29:11;  consequently  all  in 
termeddling  with  it  is  prevented.  A  case  parallel  with  our  text  is  Isa.  8: 
16,  where  the  prophet  seals  his  prediction  in  the  presence  of  witnesses, 
and  casts  himself  on  the  future  for  its  certain  fulfilment.  The  sealing 
would  render  it  secure  against  any  change,  either  through  his  own  in 
terference,  or  that  of  others,  and  so  put  to  a  fair  test  his  claim  to  the 
office  of  a  prophet.  But  in  that  case  the  fulfilment  was  near  at  hand  ; 
whereas,  in  the  present  case,  one  reason  given  for  the  sealing  is,  that  it  is 
for  many  days,  i.  e.  a  long  time.  From  the  third  year  of  Belshazzar  (v.  1) 
to  the  death  of  Antiochus,  388  years  intervened.  The  idea  of  preservation, 
then,  (which  is  the  predominant  one  here  conveyed  by  the  word  sealing), 
has  a  leading  place.  T^he  forbidding  of  access  is  secondary,  and  belongs 
merely  to  that  of  securing  against  alterations.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
Dan.  12:  4,  9.  On  the  contrary,  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  is  required 
"not  to  seal  up  his  prophecy,  because  the  time  (of  its  inceptive  fulfilment) 
is  near"  (Rev.  22:  10),  and  therefore  little  danger  of  alteration  could  be 
apprehended.  I  do  not  see,  how  Hengstenberg  (  Auth.  d.  Daniel,  s.  215  seq.) 
and  Havernick  (Comm.)  deduce  from  this  passage  the  sentiment,  that 
the  sealing  up  of  the  vision  means,  that  it  was  to  be  unintelligible  until 
the  fulfilment  of  it.  What  purpose  then  could  the  vision  subserve,  if  nei 
ther  Daniel,  nor  any  of  his  readers  could  understand  it  ?  And  when  the 
supposed  events  came,  which  were  to  constitute  a  fulfilment,  if  no  one 
could  understand  the  vision,  with  what  were  the  events  to  be  compared, 
in  order  to  determine  that  there  was  a  fulfilment  ?  A  fulfilment  of  what  ? 


CHAP.  VIII.  27.  249 

'  Of  something  that  no  one  understood,'  must  of  course  be  the  answer, 
on  the  ground  taken  by  the  writers  in  question.  —  Besides  ;  Daniel  is  here 
required  to  do  something  himself,  viz.  to  seal  up.  Did  Daniel  himself, 
then,  make  his  own  vision  unintelligible  ?  This  would  be  a  singular  pro 
cess  in  making  out  a  new  revelation,  —  For  the  meaning  of  ni^n  D^b  , 
comp.  the  same  phrase  in  Ezek.  12:  27. 

(27)  And  I  Daniel  fainted,  and  was  sick  some  days  ;  then  I  rose  up,  and  did  the 
business  of  the  king,  and  was  astonished  by  reason  of  the  vision,  and  understood 
it  not. 


As  to  T^ro",  see  under  2:  1.  The  translation  gives  substantially  the 
sense  here,  but  the  form  of  the  original  the  English  language  cannot  imi 
tate.  —  Qirn  ,  without  any  limitation  or  qualification,  corresponds  well  to 
some  days.  It  is  employed  only  in  cases  where  the  expression  is  designed 
to  be  indefinite.  —  Did  the  business  of  the  king,  i.  e.  returned  to  his  ordi 
nary  employment.  The  astonishment  which  the  prophet  felt,  is  not  a  new 
circumstance,  when  disclosures  are  made  of  a  terrific  nature,  as  here  ; 
comp.  4:  19.  7:  15,  28.  10:  8,  9,  15.  —  I  understood  not,  (the  same  in  12: 
8),  should  not  be  interpreted,  as  some  have  done,  as  meaning  to  say,  that 
the  words  or  symbols  of  the  vision  were  in  themselves  unintelligible, 
specially  after  the  angel  had  been  commanded  to  explain  the  vision  to 
Daniel,  vs.  16,  19.  But  the  explanation,  like  the  symbols  and  the  words, 
is  generic  and  not  specific.  Events  are  merely  sketched  ;  and  with  the 
exception  of  the  terminus  ad  quern,  time,  place,  and  persons,  are  not 
particularized.  Daniel  was  astonished  at  the  destiny  which  hung  over  his 
people.  He  did  not  understand  how  "  the  little  horn"  could  achieve  so 
great  things.  Jerome  has  hit  the  point  here  with  great  skill.  His  para 
phrase  of  "pM  "px  runs  thus  :  "  Reges  audierat,  et  eorum  nomina  nescie- 
bat  ;  futura  cognoverat,  et  quo  tempore  futura  essent,  dubius  fluctuabat." 
"  If,"  says  Jerome  moreover,  "  if  no  one  could  interpret  the  vision,  how 
came  it  that  the  angel  interpreted  it  ?"  The  difficulty  in  Daniel's  mind 
seems  plainly  to  have  been,  that  his  astonishment  and  his  intense  interest 
in  the  things  disclosed,  urged  him  on,  very  naturally,  to  further  and  mi 
nute  inquiries  and  particulars  ;  but  these  were  not  revealed  by  the  vision, 
and  were  not  designed  to  be. 

In  several  particulars  the  prophetic  vision  in  this  chapter  differs  from 
those  in  chap.  ii.  and  vii.  First  of  all,  no  notice  is  taken  of  the  Babylonish 
monarchy,  such  as  we  find  in  2:  37,  38  and  7:  4.  Then,  secondly,  there  is 
a  somewhat  extended  view  of  the  second  or  Medo-Persian  dynasty  and  its 
fall,  vs.  3  —  7.  Very  brief  and  summary  is  the  account  of  this  dynasty  in 
2:  39  and  7:  5  ;  and  its  fall  in  consequence  of  being  invaded  by  the  head  of 
the  third  dynasty,  is  not  at  all  noticed,  as  it  is  in  8:  5  —  7.  So  likewise,  in  the 


250  CHAP.  IX.  INTRODUCTION. 

third  place,  with  respect  to  the  third  dynasty.  It  is  summarily  touched  upon 
in  2:  39  and  7:  6  ;  but  a  somewhat  dilated  account  is  given  in  8:  5 — 8.  Fourth 
ly,  the  manner  in  which  the  fourth  dynasty  arises,  is  given  neither  in  2:  40, 
nor  in  7:  7  seq.  But  in  8:  8,  the  manner  of  its  rise  is  given.  Fifthly,  while 
the  fourth  dynasty  is  characterized  in  2:  40 — 43,  merely  in  a  general  way, 
no  particular  notice  is  taken  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  But  in  7:  7,  8,  19 — 
21,  23 — 26,  this  tyrant  and  persecutor  is  particularly  described,  and  his  end 
foretold.  In  8:  8 — 14,  22 — 25,  there  is  still  greater  particularity  in  the  de 
scription  of  Antiochus,  and  a  new  limitation  of  the  whole  period,  during  which 
he  will  carry  on  his  persecutions  and  vexations.  In  fact,  with  the  excep 
tion  of  the  Medo-Persian  dynasty  and  the  rise  of  Alexander's,  it  is  evi 
dent  that  almost  the  exclusive  subject  of  the  prophecy  before  us  is  Anti 
ochus. 

It  appears,  then,  that  this  third  vision  differs  from  the  others  in  the  am 
plitude  of  its  descriptions  of  the  Syrian  tyrant,  and  in  making  him  alto 
gether  the  prominent  figure  in  the  picture. 

Lastly,  it  is  a  striking  circumstance,  that  the  visions  in  chap.  ii.  vii.  both 
close  with  an  extended  view  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  which  follows  the 
downfall  of  all  the  others,  while  in  chap.  viii.  it  is  wholly  omitted.  This  is 
the  more  worthy  of  note,  because  the  circumstantial  history  of  Antiochus, 
in  chap,  xi.,  is  also  followed  by  a  development  of  a  Messianic  character. 
Such  a  departure  from  analogy,  in  the  vision  before  us,  would  seem  to  have 
been  occasioned  by  some  circumstances  of  which  we  are  ignorant.  The 
character  of  Antiochus  as  exhibited  in  chap.  ii.  vii.  xi.  (and  probably  in 
ix.),  is  remarkably  congruous  ;  so  much  so,  indeed,  as  to  leave  no  good 
room  for  doubt,  that  the  same  individual  is  meant  in  all.  If  any  one  is  dis 
posed  to  object  against  the  interpretation  which  admits  the  repetition  of 
predictions  respecting  Antiochus,  and  ask  :  '  Of  what  use  could  so  many 
repetitions  of  the  same  thing  be  ?'  The  answer  is  easy.  Of  what  use  is 
the  repetition  of  predictions,  in  Isaiah,  respecting  Assyria,  Babylon,  Tyre, 
and  the  like  ?  Of  what  use  is  the  frequent  repetition  of  Messianic  predic 
tions  ?  And  the  same  questions  may  be  put  respecting  the  representations 
of  other  prophets.  The  general  answer  I  should  give  would  be,  that  differ 
ent  exigencies  of  the  times  demanded  new  and  repeated  developments. 
The  same  things  are  never  simply  repeated.  The  subject  is  placed  in  new 
attitudes,  and  new  light  is  cast  upon  it.  Events  of  deep  interest  to  the 
civil  and  social,  or  to  the  religious  community,  will  sometimes  bear  repeti 
tion  to  serious  advantage.  We  must  confide  something,  moreover,  to  the 
judgment  of  the  prophets  in  regard  to  the  importance  of  this,  in  cases 
where  we  have,  and  can  now  have,  no  knowledge  of  minute  circumstances. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

[Some  fifteen  years  after  the  preceding  vision,  subsequent  to  the  dethronement  of 
Belshazzar  and  the  fall  of  the  Babylonish  dynasty,  and  during  the  first  year  of  the 
reign  of  Darius  the  Mede,  into  whose  hands  the  fallen  Babylonish  empire  came, 
Daniel,  in  hope  that  the  time  of  the  exile  of  his  countrymen  was  near  its  end,  betook 


CHAP.  IX.  INIRODUCTION.  251 

himself  after  long  continued  prayer  and  fasting,  to  the  diligent  perusal  of  the  pro 
phecies  of  Jeremiah  respecting  the  continuance  of  the  captivity.  There,  in  25:  11, 12, 
and  specially  in  29:  10.  he  found  seventy  years  definitely  named  as  the  period,  during 
which  the  exile  should  continue,  and  at  the  end  of  which  a  return  to  their  native 
land  would  be  allowed  to  the  Hebrews ;  Dan.  9;  1 — 3.  Most  fervently  did  he  pour 
forth  his  supplications  for  the  fulfilment  of  these  predictions.  But  even  this  he  ven 
tured  not  to  do,  until  he  had  first  made  most  ample  and  humble  and  hearty  confes 
sion  of  his  own  sins,  and  of  the  sins  of  the  kings,  the  princes,  and  the  people  of  the 
Jews  who  had  disobeyed  the  prophets,  and  transgressed  the  laws  of  Moses,  and  re 
belled  against  the  Lord;  vs.  4— 15.  The  sequel,  vs.  16—19,  exhibits  in  a  most 
striking  manner,  the  fervency  with  which  he  wrestled  with  God  in  prayer,  for  his 
people,  the  holy  city,  and  the  temple. 

Such  prayers  as  this  holy  man  uttered,  are  always  heard  before  the  throne  of  God. 
Forthwith  Gabriel,  one  of  the  presence-angels,  is  sent  to  communicate  with  Daniel, 
and  to  make  further  disclosures  to  him  respecting  the  Jewish  nation.  With  such 
haste  did  the  angel  come,  that  before  Daniel  had  done  speaking,  he  drew  near  and 
addressed  him,  and  told  him  the  object  of  his  mission ;  vs.  20 — 22.  Even  at  the 
beginning  of  Daniel's  supplication  a  message  went  forth,  and  the  angel  declares  that 
he  hud  come  to  communicate  it,  because  Daniel  is  greatly  beloved.  He  exhorts  the 
prophet,  therefore,  to  give  attention  to  his  message,  and  to  consider  well  the  import 
of  he  prophetic  vision  ;  v.  23. 

Seventy  weeks  [of  years]  are  distinguished  or  abscinded  from  the  general  course  of 
time,  as  a  peculiar  period  which  must  be  passed  through,  before  the  new  and  glori 
ous  dispensation  of  the  Messiah  will  introduce  the  expiation  of  sin,  and  reconciliation 
for  iniquity ;  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness,  and  confirm  what  the  prophets  have 
foretold  ;  and  consecrate  a  Holy  of  Holies  belonging  to  the  new  and  better  dispen 
sation  ;  v.  24.  These  seventy  weeks  are  divided  into  three  different  periods,  each  dis 
tinctly  marked  by  specific  events  at  the  commencement  or  close,  or  else  by  what 
takes  place  during  their  continuance.  Seven  weeks  [of  years]  begin  with  a  mandate 
to  restore  and  build  up  Jerusalem,  and  end  with  the  appearance  of  an  Anointed 
One  who  is  a  Prince.  During  three  score  and  two  weeks  [of  years],  the  city  of  Je 
rusalem  shall  be  rebuilt  and  prosper,  although  in  troublous  times  ;  v.  25.  After  this 
period,  an  Anointed  One  shall  be  cut  off;  in  consequence  of  which  the  Jewish  nation 
shall  be  destitute  of  a  lawful  and  proper  officer  of  this  class.  Moreover  the  people 
of  a  [foreign]  prince  shall  corne,  and  lay  waste  the  city  and  the  sanctuary;  but  he 
shall  come  to  his  end  with  overwhelming  destruction.  The  invasion  of  the  city  and 
sanctuary  will  occasion  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  and  war  will  ensue ;  but 
unto  the  end  of  that  war  the  desolations  which  it  will  occasion,  are  limited  by 
Heaven's  decree,  and  cannot  exceed  the  appointed  measure;  v.  26.  The  invading 
foreign  prince  will  form  close  alliances  with  many  Jews,  for  one  week  [of  years] ; 
during  half  of  that  week  he  will  cause  sacrifice  and  oblation  at  Jerusalem  to  cease, 
an  idol  worthy  of  destruction  shall  be  erected  over  an  abominable  bird  [Jupiter's 
eagle],  and  unto  consummation,  even  that  which  is  decreed  shall  then  be  poured 
upon  him  who  is  doomed  to  destruction.] 


The  first  thing  that  strikes  the  attentive  reader  of  this  chapter  as  an  ob 
ject  of  inquiry  is,  how  the  predictive  or  prophetic  part  of  it  compares  with  the 
other  prophecies  of  Daniel.  Those  who  find  in  it  simply  and  only  a  Messi- 


252  CHAP.  IX.  INTRODUCTION. 

anic  prediction,  give  it  an  interpretation  which  makes  it  entirely  discrepant 
from  all  the  other  prophecies  of  this  book.  In  all  other  cases  where  the 
fifth  or  Messianic  kingdom  is  foretold,  there  are  preceding  dynasties  and 
events  also  predicted.  Only  one  vision  (that  in  chap,  viii.)  is  destitute 
of  a  Messianic  part;  and  only  one  (in  chap,  ii.)  is  destitute  of  a  more  or 
less  specific  description  of  the  Syrian  tyrant  and  persecutor.  As  this  last 
oppression  of  the  people  of  God,  whose  influences  and  whose  relentless  fury 
threatened  far  worse  consequences  to  the  Jews  and  to  their  religion,  than 
did  the  Babylonish  exile,  is  made  so  conspicuous  in  all  the  proper  visions 
of  Daniel  himself,  it  would  be  at  least  singular,  if  the  prophecy  in  Dan.  ix. 
should  pass  him  by  in  entire  silence.  Indeed  the  very  outset  of  this  vision 
(v.  24)  seems  explicitly  to  declare,  that  its  design  is  to  describe  events 
which  will  happen  before  the  introduction  of  that  peaceful  kingdom,  which 
is  to  reconcile  man  to  God,  propitiate  their  sins,  fulfil  the  most  important 
part  of  all  prophecy,  and  consecrate  a  perpetual  holy  of  holies.  That 
seventy  weeks  are  appointed  or  limited  to  pass  away  before  this  will  take 
place,  seems  to  be  the  necessary  implication  of  v.  24.  These  weeks  are 
then  distributed  into  three  different  periods,  and  have  a  relation  to  things 
somewhat  diverse  and  distinct  from  each  other.  How  can  we  suppose,  now, 
that  what  will  take  place  during  these  respective  periods,  is  passed  by  in 
silence  ?  Yet  the  exegesis  which  makes  the  whole  paragraph  exclusively 
Messianic,  makes  a  part  of  these  periods  to  precede  and  a  part  to  follow  the 
commencement  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  This  seems  to  be  evidently 
against  the  tenor  of  the  prediction  before  us,  and  certainly  against  the 
tenor  of  the  book  in  general.  A  mixture  of  sorrow  and  joy,  of  trouble 
and  deliverance,  is  everywhere  else  to  be  found ;  why  should  they  be  ex 
cluded  here  ?  To  me  it  seems  very  clear  that  they  are  not,  but  that  the 
prediction  before  us  follows  the  analogy  of  the  others,  in  regard  to  the  mat 
ter  in  question. 

The  circumstance,  that  in  the  present  case  the  Messianic  part  of  the  pro 
phecy  precedes,  makes  no  important  difference  as  to  the  nature  of  the  case. 
The  usual  order  in  the  prophets  is,  that  the  Messianic  part  of  a  prophecy 
comes  at  the  close.  But  this  is  not  always  the  case.  Isa.  ii.  is  a  notable 
example  of  a  contrary  usage.  So  in  the  present  case.  The  angel  an 
nounces,  that  the  expected  era  of  spiritual  deliverance  will  surely  come  \ 
or,  in  other  words,  that  what  Daniel  had  already  predicted  more  than  once, 
would  not  fail  of  accomplishment.  But  these  '  glad  tidings  of  great  joy'  are 
mingled  with  information  that  fills  the  prophet  with  deep  solicitude. 

One  very  important  inquiry,  which  has  not  always  been  made,  presents 
itself  at  the  outset.  What  was  the  object  of  Daniel's  fasting  and  prayer? 
Was  it  to  obtain  information,  whether  the  seventy  years  predicted  by  Jere 
miah  were  now  at  an  end  ?  There  is  nothing  to  prove  this.  He  tells  us 
(v.  2),  that  he  understood  by  the  writings  of  Jeremiah,  that  seventy  years, 
and  only  so  many,  were  to  be  accomplished  or  completed,  in  order  to  fill 
out  the  measure  of  Babylonish  exile.  He  was  in  no  doubt,  then,  concern 
ing  this  point.  He  surely  could  be  in  none  as  to  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the 
exile ;  for  he  was  himself  one  of  its  first  victims.  Now  as  Babylon  was 
taken  by  the  Medo-Persian  army  in  538  B.  C.,  the  first  year  of  Darius  the 
king  would  be  either  the  latter  part  of  that  year,  or  the  former  part  of  537, 
or  it  might  comprise  both ;  and  of  course  this  would  be  the  sixty-ninth 


CHAP.  IX.  INTRODUCTION.  253 

year  of  the  exile.  Probably  the  vision  was  near  the  close  of  this  year ;  for 
Daniel  appears  to  believe  that  deliverance  is  near  at  hand,  and  therefore 
prays  the  more  earnestly  for  it.  Vs.  16 — 19  fully  develop  his  wishes  and 
designs.  The  angel  is  not  sent  then  to  solve  his  doubts  as  to  what  Jere 
miah  meant,  or  to  show  when  the  seventy  weeks  would  end.  He  comes  to  com 
fort  and  enlighten  the  solicitous  worshipper  of  God,  and  to  inform  him  what 
further  troubles  await  the  Hebrew  nation,  before  their  great  and  final  de 
liverer  will  come.  Wieseler  (Die  70  Wochen,  s.  13),  lays  it  down  as  cer 
tain,  that  'every  explanation  of  vs.  24 — 27  is  erroneous,  which  does  not 
assign  to  them  a  disclosure  of  deliverance  from  the  then  present  misery  of 
the  Jewish  nation.'  But  whoever  will  carefully  peruse  vs.  16 — 19  must 
see,  that  Daniel  has  more  solicitude  about  the  worship  of  God  and  the 
desolations  of  Zion  and  the  sanctuary,  than  in  respect  to  the  mere  outward 
civil  and  social  condition  of  the  captive  Jews.  The  probability  surely  is, 
that  under  such  men  as  Daniel  and  his  compeers,  who  bore  an  active  part 
in  the  government  of  Babylonia,  they  had  been  treated  with  more  than  or 
dinary  lenity.  At  any  rate,  no  persecuting  fury  had  increased  the  mise 
ries  of  their  condition,  and  their  bondage  seems  to  have  been  quite  tolera 
ble  in  respect  to  their  outward  condition.  It  is  the  honor  of  God  and  the 
promotion  of  true  piety  and  religion,  for  which  Daniel  is  most  anxious  ; 
and  v.  24  contains  an  assurance,  that  in  due  time  these  will  be  amply  pro 
vided  for.  The  remark  of  Wieseler  is  too  broad  and  indefinite,  unless,  like 
him,  we  limit  v.  24  to  a  mere  promise  of  return  from  exile  and  renewal  of 
religious  rites,  services,  and  privileges,  after  seventy  weeks  of  days,  i.  e. 
literal  weeks,  from  the  time  of  Daniel's  vision.  For  many  reasons  I  cannot 
accede  to  this  view.  The  leading  ones  are,  first,  that  on  such  a  ground  v. 
24  would  be  entirely  at  variance  with  vs.  25 — 27  in  the  mode  of  reckoning 
time,  since  the  triplex  division  of  time  in  the  latter  evidently  appe'ars  to 
amount  to  the  seventy  weeks  of  v.  24.  Secondly,  the  language  of  v.  24  is 
too  general  and  too  significant  to  be  applied  to  the  mere  literal  return  from 
exile.  Well  has  Hoffman  (Weissag.  und  Erfiillung,  s.  298)  said :  *  One 
can  interpret  the  contents  [of  this  verse]  only  in  an  arbitrary  way,  who 
applies  it  merely  to  the  liberty  of  returning  which  Cyrus  gave  to  the  Jews, 
which  liberty  was  so  sparingly  used,  and  so  little  satisfied  anticipations.' 
Unquestionably  there  is  a  sense,  an  elevated  one  too,  in  which  the  angel's 
communication  allayed  the  burdensome  part  of  Daniel's  solicitude  about 
the  honor  of  God  and  the  interests  of  religion.  But  I  find  no  specific  lim 
itation  of  the  end  of  Jeremiah's  seventy  years.  None  surely  was  needed 
for  Daniel.  The  terminus  a  quo  was  fully  within  his  knowledge  ;  the  ter 
minus  ad  quern  of  course  could  not  be  a  matter  of  doubt  to  him. 

This  leads  me  to  say,  that  the  mode  of  interpreting  the  seventy  years  of  Jere 
miah  adopted  by  some,  who  tell  us  that  "  the  angel  was  sent  to  inform  him, 
that  so  many  literal  years  were  not  meant,  but  only  a  period  of  seventy  mystic 
year- weeks,"  agrees  very  ill  with  the  tenor  of  the.  book  throughout.  How 
any  one  can  be  brought  to  believe,  that  the  seventy  weeks  of  Daniel  are 
merely  a  new  exegesis  of  Jeremiah's  seventy  years,  and  not  the  designation  of  ft 
new  period  comprising  new  eventsy  I  am  not  able  to  see.  Not  a  word  about 
the  Babylonish  exile  is  contained  in  vs.  24 — 27.  How  could  this  be,  if  the 
new  designation  of  the  seventy  weeks  comprised  in  part  that  exile,  and  merely- 
extended  the  period  beyond  the  limits  which  Daniel  had  attached  to  it  ? 

22 


254  CHAP.  IX.  INTRODUCTION. 

It  would  seem  that  the  angel  must,  in  such  a  case,  have  been  as  uncertain 
about  the  distance  of  the  terminus  ad  quern,  as  those  interpreters  suppose 
Daniel  to  have  been. 

That  Daniel  should  feel  solicitude  about  the  posture  of  affairs,  at  the 
time  of  the  vision  now  under  consideration,  was  quite  natural.  The  time 
for  the  exile  to  come  to  an  end  was  very  near.  The  Babylonish  monar 
chy,  which  held  the  Hebrews  in  bondage,  had  been  destroyed.  A  new 
dynasty  had  arisen,  viz.  that  of  Darius  the  Mede.  Although  not  disposed 
to  persecute  and  oppress  the  Jews,  he  appeared  at  least  to  be  indifferent 
to  their  sufferings  and  wrongs.  No  movement  was  made  to  relieve  them. 
They  were  doubtless,  in  view  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy,  expecting  relief. 
What  could  be  more  natural,  than  for  Daniel  to  ask  with  earnest  importu 
nity  that  this  relief  might  come,  for  the  honor  of  God  and  of  religion  ? 
This  was  a  strong  plea ;  and  in  the  mouth  of  such  a  man  we  might  expect 
it  would  be  regarded  (as  it  was)  with  great  favor. 

The  predictions  in  vs.  24 — 27  cannot  be  considered,  in  any  sense,  as  an 
exegesis  of  Jeremiah.  Nor  is  the  communication  made  entirely  a  new  dis 
closure.  That  the  Messianic  kingdom  was  to  commence,  after  the  four 
great  empires  had  ceased,  was  not  new.  Chap.  ii.  vii.  fully  exhibit  this. 
That  Antiochus  would  oppress  and  persecute,  was  not  new.  That  he  would 
cause  the  sacrifices  and  oblation  to  cease  for  three  and  a  half  years,  was 
not  new,  for  7:  25  discloses  this.  That  his  course  of  oppression  in  respect 
to  the  Jews,  should  continue  about  one  week  (of  years),  was  not  new;  for 
8:  14  substantially  discloses  this.  That  the  tyrant  should  at  last  suddenly 
and  fearfully  perish  was  not  new  ;  for  8:  25  fully  reveals  this.  But  that 
the  peculiarly  oppressive  trials  and  troubles  of  the  Jews,  before  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah,  should  be  ended  after  a  period  of  seventy  weeks  of  years  from 
the  beginning  or  end  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  was  a  fact  not  before  revealed. 
That  the  existence  and  prosperity  of  the  new  Jewish  Commonwealth,  and 
the  rebuilding  of  its  metropolis,  should  be  all  along  attended  with  "  troublous 
times,"  and  yet  go  forward  —  was  a  fact  not  before  disclosed.  That  the 
Lord's  anointed — the  lawful  high  priest  —  should  be  cut  off  by  violence, 
and  have  no  proper  successor,  was  a  new  fact.  All  this  was  deeply  inter 
esting  to  Daniel  and  to  the  Jews.  Forewarned,  forearmed.  Return  from 
the  exile  was  speedy  and  certain  ;  but  the  hopes  of  continued  peace  and 
prosperity  immediately  after  this  must  not  be  indulged.  The  Lord  had 
many  trials  other  than  the  present  in  store  for  his  people,  before  the  great 
Deliverer  would  come.  But  it  is  not  all  of  them,  that  the  prophet  is  now 
commissioned  to  disclose  and  to  dwell  upon.  Only  such  times  as  might  be 
compared  with  past  events,  the  laying  waste  of  the  temple  and  holy  city, 
the  destruction  of  large  numbers  of  the  people,  cessation  of  religious 
rites  and  civil  privileges,  the  profanation  of  the  sanctuary  by  heathen 
rites,  —  such  events,  and  such  only,  are  prophetically  disclosed.  The  com 
munication  of  the  angel  to  Daniel,  apparently  amounts  to  the  following 
declarations :  *  Thy  people  have  suffered  one  exile  and  all  its  mournful 
consequences.  Other  like  events,  differing  indeed  as  to  manner  and  time, 
but  even  more  trying,  more  dangerous  to  the  good,  and  more  disgraceful 
and  fatal  to  the  wicked,  are  still  before  the  Jews.  A  portion  of  the  seventy 
weeks  will  bring  them  through  this  fiery  ordeal ;  and  after  this,  until  the 


CHAP.  IX.  INTRODUCTION.  255 

great  Deliverer  shall  come,  they  shall  only  experience  the  ordinary  trials 
of  a  nation  in  circumstances  like  to  theirs.' 

It  is  on  some  such  ground,  I  apprehend,  that  we  are  to  account  for  the 
fact,  that  all  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  developing  what  is  to  precede  the 
Messianic  kingdom,  end  with  the  life  and  actions  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
Other  subsequent  enemies  did  indeed  maltreat  the  Jews ;  but  none  of 
them  attained  to  that  consummation  of  wickedness  and  cruelty  which  were 
exhibited  by  him.  They  are  not,  therefore,  made  conspicuous  in  prophecy. 

Should  any  one  feel  disposed  to  object,  here,  that  there  is  somewhat 
of  the  arbitrary  in  these  suggestions,  I  would  appeal  at  once  to  the  books 
of  other  prophets,  yea  to  the  whole  body  of  Hebrew  prophecy,  and  ask  :• 
Whether  they  have  not  respect  to  particular  events  of  interest  and  impor 
tance,  or,  in  other  words,  whether  they  are  merely  a  regular  series  of  his 
toric  annals?  If  not,  then  events,  such  as  I  have  just  mentioned,  are  the 
appropriate  subjects  of  prophecy.  \Vhat  more  can  be  said  of  the  book  of 
Daniel,  or  what  more  need  we  say,  in  order  to  vindicate  the  view  just 
taken  ? 

To  those  who  know  the  course  which  a  portion  of  recent  criticism  has 
taken,  in  order  to  show  that  the  book  of  Daniel  was  written  after  the  death 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  no  apology  need  be  made  for  these  remarks.  It  is 
a  common  allegation  among  critics  of  the  so-called  liberal  class,  that  the 
book  of  Daniel  was  written  post  eventum  ;  and  that  the  writer  was  not  con 
fident  enough  in  his  own  prophetic  powers,  to  venture  anything  beyond 
what  history  already  gave  him,  excepting  that,  in  common  with  all  the 
Jews,  he  was  full  of  ardent  expectations  in  regard  to  the  Messianic  king 
dom.  Hence,  as  they  conclude,  he  stops  short  with  Antiochus,  and  ex 
presses  his  confident  belief,  that  immediately  after  his  death  the  Messianic 
kingdom  would  be  established. 

On  the  full  discussion  of  this  topic  I  shall  not  now  enter,  but,  leaving  it 
for  another  occasion,  merely  remark  at  present,  that  the  writer  must  have 
been  a  man  of  great  peculiarities,  to  declare  himself  so  confidently  about 
the  Messianic  reign  as  immediately  following  the  death  of  Antiochus,  if  he 
himself  lived  at  that  very  period,  and  saw  no  certain  tokens  that  such  a 
reign  had  commenced,  or  was  indeed  about  to  commence.  He  appeals  to 
no  such  tokens  ;  he  gives  no  hint  respecting  them.  What  moreover  was 
to  become  of  the  credit  of  his  book,  in  case  of  a  failure  ?  Then  as  to  all 
his  prophecies  ending  with  Antiochus,  (the  Messianic  kingdom  only  ex- 
cepted),  I  would  hope  that  the  remarks  already  made  above,  suggest  some 
other  more  satisfactory  reason  for  the  prophet's  course,  than  that  of  his 
ignorance  of  the  future.  Revelation  of  events  is  made  for  special  purposes, 
and  to  answer  specific  ends.  It  is  not  annals  ;  it  consists  not  of  year-books- 
and  historical  registers.  The  most  hazardous  period  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
down  to  its  ruin  by  Titus,  was  that  of  Antiochus.  It  was  the  most  trying 
to  the  good,  and  seemingly  the  most  auspicious  to  the  bad.  It  was  the 
only  period  in  which  the  sanctuary  of  God  was  daily  polluted,  for  some 
years,  by  heathen  rites  and  sacrifices.  Should  not  such  a  period  be  desig 
nated,  and  the  people  of  God  forewarned  ?  Daniel  and  the  angel-inter 
preter  seem  to  have  so  thought  and  decided.  Might  not  prediction  re 
specting  the  outward  condition  of  the  Jews  before  the  coming  of  the  Mes 
siah,  stop  with  events  belonging  to  such  a  period,  and  omit  the  ordinary 


256  CHAP.  IX.  1,  2. 

events  that  followed  ?  So  have  other  prophets  done,  in  respect  to  other 
countries  than  that  of  Judea  ;  and  so,  respecting  the  Hebrews  ;  why  should 
Daniel  only  be  excepted  from  ordinary  usage  ? 


(I  )  In  the  lirst  year  of  Darius,  the  son  of  Ahasuerus,  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes, 
who  was  made  kin    over  the  kindom  of  the  Chuldees. 


In  respect  to  Darius,  see  under  6:  1.  —  wvwnx  has  been  the  subject 
of  much  speculation  and  remark;  see  Lengerke  Comm.  s.  219  f.  231  f. 
The  cuneiform  inscriptions  of  Persia,  lately  deciphered,  seem  to  have 
put  the  matter  nearly  at  rest.  The  name  is  found  in  them,  written 
Khshhershe  or  Khskvershe,  the  root  of  which  seems  to  be  the  Persian 
J$Lcc-»wyii  (shersha),  lion.  The  word  therefore  is  a  mere  appellative,  and 

might  be  common  to  many  distinguished  persons.  Probably  Astyages, 
the  Median  king,  is  here  designated.  —  ti^n  >  was  made  king  ;  Schleyer 
(Wurdigung  der  Einwiirfe,  etc.,  s.  185  seq.j  alleges,  that  this  word  favors 
the  idea  which  he  defends,  viz.  that  Darius  was  merely  viceroy  of  Baby 
lon.  He  further  seeks  to  confirm  this  by  6:  1,  KMsbo  ^2£,  received  the 
kingdom  ;  which  shows,  as  he  alleges,  the  dependence  of  Darius  on  a 
superior.  So  also  we  may  say  ;  but  who  is  that  superior  ?  Had  it  been 
merely  another  and  higher  king,  would  he  not  have  been  named  ?  But 
there  is  One  who  sets  kings  upon  their  thrones,  and  casts  them  down,  at 
his  pleasure,  whom  Daniel  doubtless  regarded,  in  this  case,  as  the  dis 
penser  of  office  and  of  kingdoms.  Even  Lengerke  concedes  this,  in  the 
present  case.  If  any  one  insists  on  it,  however,  I  should  not  object  to 
the  exposition,  which  supposes  Daniel  to  have  the  doings  of  Cyrus  in 
view,  who  was  the  real  conqueror  of  Babylon,  and  who,  as  Xenophon 
relates,  took  great  care  to  provide  for  the  regal  claims  of  Darius. 

(2)  In  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  I  Daniel  understood  by  the  Scriptures  the  num 
ber  of  years;  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  to  complete 
seventy  years  in  respect  to  the  desolations  of  Jerusalem. 

T/te  first  year,  etc.,  corresponds  to  538  —  7  B.  C.  —  C^Btea  is  said,  by 
Lengerke  and  others,  necessarily  to  mean  a  corpus  Scripturarum,  i.  e.  a 
public  collection  of  the  sacred  books  as  already  made  and  completed  ;  and 
of  course  completed  before  the  book  of  Daniel  was  written.  But  would  a 
pseudo-Daniel  thus  betray  himself,  by  a  statement  that  savored  of  so  late  a 
period,  as  that  after  the  canon  was  closed  ?  Others  represent  the  word  as 
meaning  a  private  collection  of  sacred  books  ;  others,  as  designating  a  cor 
pus  propheticum.  None  of  these  conjectures  are  necessary  ;  and  none  of 
them  are  well-grounded.  In  Jer.  25:  13,  the  prophet  names  his  written 
prophecy  respecting  the  seventy  years,  rtf  n  "iS&n  .  A  second  prediction, 


CHAP.  IX.  3.  257 

sent  to  the  exiles  in  Babylon,  respecting  the  seventy  years,  he  also  names 
"iB&n,  29:  1.  Two  Sephers,  I  suppose,  may  be  called  tr^S&rt;  and  this  is 
just  what  Daniel  has  called  them,  in  view  of  their  contents  respecting  the 
seventy  years.  To  draw  an  argument  from  such  a  passage,  and  spread 
it  out  over  more  than  a  page,  as  Lengerke  has  done,  in  order  to  show 
that  the  book  of  Daniel  was  written  after  the  canon  was  closed,  is  some 
thing  quite  aside  from  either  good  logic  or  fair  criticism.  I  take  the  a 
in  di-iB&a  to  designate,  as  often  elsewhere,  instrumentality.  By  perusing 
these  prophecies  of  Jeremiah,  Daniel  attained  to  a  definite  knowledge 
respecting  the  period  of  the  exile.  A  perusal  for  the  first  time,  on  the 
part  of  Daniel  at  this  period,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose ;  but  only  an 
attentive  reperusal.  It  is  unnecessary  to  make  o^&sa  object  after  the 
verb  ^rina ;  and  of  course  unnecessary  to  translate  this  last  word  by 
sought  understanding  in  the  writings,  etc.,  as  Lengerke  does,  and  then 
take  the  following  words  as  being  mere  explanatory  apposition.  The 
more  simple  method  of  exegesis,  seems  to  be  that  which  I  have  adopted 
above.  —  fa  rnft  "im  I  regard  as  coordinate  with  fa  ^fiO^a ,  and  designed 
to  explain  it :  'I  understood  the  number  ...  [I  understood]  that  the 
word  of  Jehovah  came  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet  to  complete  seventy 
years,  etc.'  This  last  clause  shows  the  amount  of  the  number.  —  Seventy 
years  is  object  to  the  verb  Fiiklpiab .  The  form  of  this  verb  is  like  those 
of  Jib;  as  is  often  the  case  with  verbs  fcb,  §  74.  Notes,  VI.  c»  —  ni'rnnl? 
for  or  in  respect  to  the  desolations.  These  need  not  be  limited  to  the 
final  destruction  only  of  Jerusalem,  under  Zedekiah,  in  588  B.  C.,  but  to 
all  the  spoiling,  plunder,  and  carrying  into  exile,  which  had  taken  place 
since  the  city  was  first  captured  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  Nothing  can  be 
plainer,  than  that  Daniel  himself  reckons  in  this  way ;  otherwise  he 
could  not  make  out  a  completion,  or  very  nearly  a  completion,  of  the 
seventy  years  in  question. 

(3)  And  I  set  my  face  toward  the  Lord  God,  to  seek  prayer  and  supplications, 
with  fasting,  and  sackcloth,  and  ashes. 

Because  Daniel  saw,  as  yet,  no  approaching  signs  of  liberty  for  his 
people  to  return  from  their  exile  to  Judea,  he  betook  himself  to  earnest 
supplication,  that  God  would  speed  this  event.  —  I  set  my  face  to  or  toward 
the  Lord  God,  viz.  toward  Jerusalem  where  God  was  supposed  pecu 
liarly  to  dwell ;  see  6:  10,  where  the  same  posture  in  prayer  is  more 
explicitly  stated.  This  was  probably  the  common  posture  of  the  Jews 
when  abroad,  and  not  improbably  of  those  at  home.  —  difi'bxrj ,  the  God, 
i.  e.  the  only  living  and  true  God.  —  tt?j?ab  •  to  seek  earnestly  or  carefully 
must  signify  here  not  to  look  after,  to  seek  up,  (which  would  make  no 
tolerable  sense),  but  to  betake  one's  self  to,  to  engage  in.  —  nfefin  means 

22* 


258  CHAP.  IX.  4,  5. 


prayer  in  its  generic  sense  ;  diawnt)  signifies  supplication  for  mercy  or 
favor.  This  was  done  with  the  usual  accompaniments  during  such  spe 
cial  seasons  of  devotional  exercises,  viz.  with  fasting,  while  the  person 
was  clothed  with  sackcloth,  and  his  head  besprinkled  with  ashes  ;  Job  2: 
12.  All  these  were  the  outward  signs  of  internal  humiliation  and  peni 
tence. 

(4)  And  I  poured  out  supplication  to  Jehovah  my  God,  and  made  confession,  and 
»aid:  Ah!  Lord,  the  great  and  dreadful  God,  who  kecpeth  covenant  and  mercy  to 
those  that  love  him  and  keep  his  commandments  ! 

The  frequent  repetition  here  of  the  prolonged  form  (with  ft  -  appended), 
seems  to  depend  on  the  Vav  prefixed  (§  126.  1.  e),  which  often  admits  it 
in  cases  where  the  meaning  is  neither  hortative,  nor  expressive  of  will 
or  determination  (§  126.  1.  c).  Here  is  simply  narration.  —  rr^nnxa, 
Hithp.  of  rrn,  §  68.  2.  e.  g.  —  In  rrraio,  1st  pers.  Imperf.,  the  at  of  the 
stem  is  dropped,  §  67.  2.  —  &t|&  (read  an'-na),  compounded  of  Fix  ah, 
alas,  and  xa  =  I  beseech  thee.  It  is  a  common  exclamation  of  a  suppli 
ant  deeply  affected.  —  ^snx  =  rnrr  ,  and  pointed  ^-  in  distinction  from 
the  common  plur.  with  suff.  iJnx.  —  ^Stt,  emphatic.  —  Great  and  dread 
ful,  great  in  the  displays  of  his  power,  and  dreadful  in  punishing  impeni 
tent  offenders,  e.  g.  such  as  the  Jewish  nation  had  been.  While  this 
thought  naturally  occurs  first  to  Daniel's  mind,  because  of  the  then  exist 
ing  state  of  the  Hebrews,  yet,  as  he  is  pleading  for  mercy,  he  does  not 
forget  another  conspicuous  part  of  the  divine  character,  who  keepeth  the 
covenant  and  the  mercy.  The  word  mercy  I  take  to  be  here  exegetical 
of  covenant,  for  it  points  out  what  particular  part  of  the  divine  m*i  a 
(ordinance)  the  speaker  means,  viz.  that  part  which  contains  promises 
of  kindness  or  mercy  to  the  penitent  and  obedient.  —  The  commencing 
address  of  the  prayer  is  in  the  Vocative  and  second  person,  and  so  is  bttf-j  , 
but  TQUJ  is  in  the  third  person,  as  are  also  the  suffixes  which  follow  ;  see 
§  134.  3.  Note  3,  as  to  change  of  persons. 

(5)  We  have  sinned,  we  have  done  perversely,  we  have  acted  impiously,  and  have 
rebelled,  and  have  turned  hack  from  thy  commandments  and  thine  ordinances. 


.  Inf.  abs.  used  for  the  definite  verb  wio  ,  stem  "ito.  For  this  use 
of  the  Inf.  abs.,  see  §  128.  4.  b.  More  literally  the  Inf.  here  might  be 
translated  :  there  has  been  a  turning  back.  The  climactic  construction  of 
the  sentence  is  palpable.  To  turn  back  from  obedience  to  the  divine 
statutes,  in  the  frame  of  mind  which  belongs  to  rebels,  is  the  consumma 
tion  of  wickedness  ,  and  so  Daniel  rightly  considers  it.  The  variety  of 
verbs  employed  here,  indicates  the  design  of  the  speaker  to  confess  all 
sin  of  every  kind  in  its  full  extent. 


CHAP.  IX.  6—9.  259 

(6)  And  we  have  not  hearkened  to  thy  servants,  the  prophets,  who  spake  in  thy 
name  to  our  kings,  our  princes,  and  our  fathers,  and  to  all  the  people  of  the  land. 

Prophets,  speaking  in  the  name,  i.  e.  by  the  authority,  of  God  are 
often  and  familiarly  called  his  servants,  as  here.  —  The  preposition  ^  is 
omitted  before  the  second  and  third  of  the  nouns  which  it  virtually  gov 
erns,  §  151.  4.  This  is  a  frequent  usage.  The  we  of  the  first  clause 
(comprised  in  wsad  )  is  explained  both  by  the  second  and  third  clauses. 
The^  second  particularizes  various  distinguished  classes  of  the  people  ; 
the  third  comprises  all  the  remainder.  Y^'l  »  w^  ^e  art^c^e  here, 
means  of  course  our  land,  viz.  Palestine. 

(7)  To  thee,  0  Lord,  belongeth  righteousness,  but  to  us  shame  of  face,  as  at  the 
present  time,  to  each  man  of  Judah  and  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  all 
Israel,  who  are  near  and  who  are  afar  off,  in  all  the  countries  whither  thou  hast 
driven  them,  on  account  of  their  offences  which  they  have  committed  against  thee. 

C^SBti  nda  means  such  a  sense  of  shame  as  makes  the  countenance  to 
Uush.  —  rtfii  Di^sj  designates  the  then  present  time.  The  whole  phrase, 
Lengerke  says,  is  borrowed  from  Ezra  9:  7.  But  suppose  I  should  insist 
on  reversing  the  order  ?  There  are  many  reasons  for  so  doing  ;  but  to 
suspect  borrowing  or  lending,  in  a  case  so  simple  and  obvious  as  this, 
looks  like  grasping  at  trifles  to  accomplish  some  favorite  end.  —  i^sb  , 
being  generic,  might  be  translated  to  the  men.  Here,  the  b  prefix  is 
thrice  repeated  ;  which  is  done  for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  —  Who  are  near 
etc.,  participles  with  the  article  used  as  a  relative  pronoun,  §  109.  2.  a.  — 
D'j  .  .  .  T£X  ,  where,  whither.  This  whole  clause  is  added  so  as  to  com 
prise  all  the  Jews  afar  off  and  near,  as  well  as  those  in  Babylonia.  — 
iSi  cbsaa,  lit.  on  account  of  the  perfidy  which  they  have  perfidiously  com 
mitted  in  respect  to  thee.  I  have  virtually  retained  the  sense,  in  the  trans 
lation  above,  but  have  conformed  the  mode  of  expression  to  our  usual 
English  idiom. 

(8)  O  Lord,  to  us  belongeth  shame  of  face  —  to  our  kings,  to  our  princes,  and  to 
our  fathers,  because  we  have  sinned  against  thee. 

A  virtual  repetition  of  vs.  5,  6.  But  here  the  prefix  b  ,  for  the  sake 
of  emphasis,  stands  before  the  words  designating  each  of  the  classes  ; 
which  differs  from  the  usage  in  v.  6.  For  TSX  because,  see  §  152.  II.  c. 

(9)  To  the  Lord  our  God  belongeth  compassion  and  pardon;  for  we  have  sinned 
against  him. 


The  article  stands  before  rVinbtshi  diarprt  as  abstracts,  §  107.  3. 
Note  1.  c.  The  plur.  form  of  these  nouns  denotes  intensity  in  the  mani 
festation,  or  the  continued  and  extended  exercise  of  these  qualities  or 


260  CHAP.  IX.  10—13. 

attributes;  p.  201,  Hem.  at  the  bottom.  The  article  before  the  nouns 
may  also  be  accounted  for,  if  one  prefers  this  solution,  on  the  ground 
of  designating  the  things  signified  as  belonging  to  God  in  a  peculiar 
manner,  i.  e.  on  the  ground  of  emphasis. 

(10)  And  we  have  not  hearkened  to  the  voice  of  Jehovah  our  God,  to  walk 
according  to  his  laws,  which  he  has  placed  before  us  by  his  servants  the  prophets. 

To  walk,  according  to  the  usual  idiom  of  the  Hebrew  means,  to  demean 
one's  self  or  to  act  thus  and  so.  —  Laws  has  here  its  generic  meaning,  viz. 
instructions  of  every  kind.  —  Placed  before  us,  here  includes  the  idea  of 
being  reduced  to  writing,  so  that  the  laws  may  be  possessed  and  read. 

(11)  And  all  Israel  have  transgressed  thy  law,  and  turned  back  so  as  not  to 
hearken  to  thy  voice  ;  and  thou  hast  poured  upon  us  the  curse,  even  the  oath,  which 
is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses  the  servant  of  God,  because  we  have  sinned  against 
him. 


In  respect  to  libi.,  see  on  v.  5.  —  For  the  curse  and  the  oath,  see  Lev. 
26:  14  —  43.  Deut.  28:  15—19.  29:  19.  —  Tpnrn,  2  pers.  Imperf.  of 
^ri  ,  with  Vav  continuative.  §  486.  2.  —  "ib  ,  suff.  of  the  3d  pers.,  although 
the  preceding  address  is  in  the  2d  pers.  ;  see  on  v.  4. 

(12)  And  he  has  established  his  words  which  he  spake  concerning  us,  and  con 
cerning  our  judges  who  judged  us,  that  he  would  bring  great  evil  upon  us,  so  that 
there  hath  not  happened  under  the  whole  heaven,  the  like  to  what  hath  taken  place 
in  Jerusalem. 

DJ?J3,  Hiph.  with  retracted  accent,  §  71.  3,  and  Note  7.  —  The  BBJB  of 
the  Hebrews  designates  every  kind  of  magistrate.  —  Jin^??3  ,  Niph.,  been 
done,  happened,  took  place.  The  meaning  is  :  '  been  brought  about  by 
thy  providence.' 

(13)  According  to  what  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  all  this  evil  has  come  upon 
us  ;  and  yet  we  have  not  besought  Jehovah  our  God  to  turn  [us]  from  our  iniquities, 
and  to  make  [us]  wise  by  thy  truth. 

nx  before  the  Nona,  case,  (see  §  116,  Note  at  the  bottom  of  the  page), 
unusual,  but  not  without  precedent.  The  \  in  ttbl  ==  and  yet,  for  this 
particle  often  connects  clauses  which  in  some  respects  are  contrasted, 
§  152.  B.  b.  —  rfen  lit.  means,  to  address  any  one  smoothly,  gently,  or 
persuasively,  and  so  to  supplicate  in  the  way  of  softening  displeasure.  — 
To  turn  us,  etc.,  means  here  not  so  much  the  pardon  of  sin,  as  grace  to 
repent  and  reform.  To  make  us  ivise  by  thy  truth,  i.  e.  wise  in  the  moral 
sense,  wise  to  avoid  evil  and  to  do  good.  In  both  cases  us  is  omitted  in 
the  original,  but  is  readily  supplied  by  the  reader.  —  TjPjaxa  ,  suff.  in  the 


CHAP.  IX.  14—16.  261 

second  person,  referring  to  rvfrn  in  the  third ;  see  the  reverse  of  this  in 
v.  4  above ;  §  134.  3.  Note  3T. 

(14)  And  so  Jehovah  hath  watched  over  the  evil,  and  hrought  it  upon  us;  for 
righteous  is  Jehovah  onr  God  in  respect  to  all  his  doings  which  he  hath  done,  for  we 
have  not  hearkened  to  his  voice. 

1'pia^ ,  the  1  consecutive,  in  such  cases  as  this,  connects  with  itself  the 
usual  sense  of  the  conjunction  ;  and  frequently  this  conjunction  has  the 
meaning  and  yet,  and  so,  therefore.  —  Watched  over  the  evil,  i.  e.  kept  it 
watchfully  in  store,  that  he  might  employ  it  in  punishing,  when  we  had 
deserved  it.  In  all  this  God  is  p^S  just ;  for  to  punish  ill-desert  is 
justice.  —  Which  he  hath  done  is  purely  a  Hebrew  mode  of  expression, 
and  the  like  is  very  common  in  Hebrew.  In  our  own  language  it  is  here 
a  superfluity  after- the  word  doings.  —  The  last  clause  might  be  rendered : 
and  we  did  not  hearken,  etc.  I  have  translated  1 ,  however,  as  marking  a 
kind  of  causal  clause,  see  §  152.  B.  c. 

(15)  And  now,  O  Lord  our  God,  who  hast  brought  thy  people  from  the  land  of 
Egypt  by  a  mighty  hand,  and  hast  made  for  thyself  a  name,  as  at  the  present  time, 
we  have  sinned,  we  have  done  wickedly. 

Here  commences  the  supplication  of  the  speaker ;  at  least,  this  address 
is  preparatory  to  it.  The  argument  stands  thus :  '  O  God,  who  in  times 
past  hast  wrought  wonderful  deliverances  for  thy  people,  and  thereby 
acquired  a  glorious  name  —  repeat  thy  wondrous  doings,  and  add  to  the 
glory  which  thou  hast  already  acquired !  As  thou  didst  bring  us  out  of 
exile  in  Egypt,  so  also  bring  us  out  of  exile  in  Babylon.'  —  A  name,  as  at 
the  present  time,  i.  e.  such  a  name,  glory,  honor,  as  is  attributed  to  thee 
even,  now.  —  We  have  sinned  etc.,  the  deep  sensation  of  penitence  forces 
from  the  speaker  the  repetition  of  confession. 

(16)  0  Lord,  according  to  all  thy  kindness  let  thine  anger  and  thine  indignation 
be  turned  away  now  from  thy  city  Jerusalem,  thy  holy  mountain,  for,  on  account  of 
our  sins  and  the  iniquities  of  our  fathers,  Jerusalem  and  thy  people  have  become  a 
reproach  to  all  around  us. 

5pr  p^iss  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  favor,  kindness,  benignity,  as  it 
often  is  when  the  plur.  is  employed  (as  here),  which  designates  repeated 
acts  of  benignity,  and  is  intensive.  —  SO ,  a  sign  of  the  optative,  §  125.  3.  b. 

—  ?Vri£  T!>  n't.  mountain  of  thy  holiness  =  thy  holy  mountain,  §  104.  1. 

—  Daniel  confesses  the  sins  of  the  fathers  which  occasioned  their  exile, 
and  the  sins  of  the  generation  then  living  which  continued  that  exile. 
The  central  point  of  his  solicitude  is  Jerusalem  and  the  holy  mountain, 
i.  e.  the  honor  of  God  and  religion.  —  Reproach  to  those  around  us,  the 


262  CHAP.  IX.  17—21. 

preposition  in  the  last  word  takes  the  form  of  a  const,  plur.  noun,  §  99.  1. 
§  101.  1. 

(17)  And  now,  0  our  God,  hearken  to  the  prayer  of  thy  servant  and  to  his  sup 
plications,  and  let  thy  face  shine  upon  thy  sanctuary  which  is  desolate,  for  the  Lord's 
sake. 

Of  thy  servant,  i.  e.  of  the  speaker,  who  mentions  himself  in  the  usual 
humble  manner  of  the  Hebrews,  when  one  addressed  a  superior.  —  ixri  , 
cause  to  shine,  i.  e.  to  be  bright,  cheerful,  to  appear  pleased,  the  reverse 
of  frowning  or  looking  dark.  —  DEisn,  Part,  intrans.  and  passive,  (as 
usual  with  this  form),  the  fi  being  a  relative  demonstrative,  §  109.  2.  a. 
—  ^m  "jSEb  ,  third  person  instead  of  the  second;  and  so  oftentimes,  when 
God  is  spoken  of. 

(18)  Incline  thine  ear,  0  my  God,  and  hear;  open  thine  eyes  and  see  our  desola 
tions  and  the  city  on  which  thy  name  is  called;  for  not  on  account  of  our  righteous 
nesses  do  we  lay  our  supplications  before  thee,  but  on  account  of  thy  great  mercy. 


rjirS  ,  (so  the  Kethibh  should  be  pointed),  is  better  than  the  marginal 
gQ  ,  because  it  is  an  intensive  form,  §  48.  5.  —  Ji^bs  .  .  .  *iiax  ,  upon 
which,  §  121.  1.  —  B^BB,  lit.  let  fall,  corresponding  well  with  our  word 
lay,  which  means  to  put  down  or  place  before,  stem  bS3  .  —  Daniel  has 
no  hope,  when  he  looks  to  the  just  deserts  of  his  people,  but  only  in  the 
mercy  of  God. 

(19)  0  Lord  hear;  O  Lord  forgive;  0  Lord  listen  and  do,  delay  not  for  thine 
own  sake,  0  my  God,  for  thy  name  is  called  upon  thy  city  and  upon  thy  people. 

hi!5§  ,  do,  viz.  that  which  I  request.  The  like  often  in  this  book,  as  to 
S-HZJS.  —  ^HKPi.bja,  opt.,  see  p.  268.  par.  3.  —  For  thine  own  sake  is  ex 
plained  by  what  follows.  As  common  parlance  made  use  of  the  phrases 
city  of  God,  and  people  of  God,  so  the  honor  of  God  is  urged  by  Daniel 
as  a  reason  why  God  should  regard  the  Hebrew  nation  with  special 
kindness. 

(20)  And  while  I  was  speaking,  and  interceding,  and  confessing  my  sin  and  the 
sin  of  my  people  Israel,  and  laying  my  supplication  before  Jehovah  my  God,  in  be 
half  of  the  holy  mountain  of  my  God;  (21)  even  while  I  was  speaking  in  prayer, 
then  the  man  Gabriel,  whom  I  had  before  seen  in  the  vision,  having  been  hastened 
in  a  swift  course,  approached  me  about  the  time  of  the  evening  oblation. 


M  ,  the  man,  viz.  the  one  whom  I  had  before  seen  in  vision,  as  the 
sequel  declares.  The  reference  is  to  what  has  been  related  in  8:  15.  — 
P&nna,  lit.  in  the  beginning  ;  but  often  the  phrase  means  simply  before, 
aforetime.  I  have  here  translated  it  simply  by  before.  The  reference  is 
to  8:  15.  —  5]3pa  fjsa  is  rendered  by  Michaelis,  Dathe,  Doderlein,  Ges., 


CHAP.  IX.  22,  23.  263 

E-osenra.,  al.,  weaned  by  swift  flight;  a  strange  idea  to  be  associated  with 
Gabriel,  i.  e.  powerful  man  of  God.  We  read  of  angels  "  swift  to  do  the 
will "  of  God,  but  not  of  their  being  wearied  by  their  swiftness.  It  is 
incongruous.  Both  words  are  evidently  of  the  same  root,  and  of  kin 
dred  meaning,  i.  e.  both  come  from  5]:sn  •  £)??  —  £)Ssra  >  Part.  Hoph., 
means  hastened,  caused  to  make  haste.  fjsia  is  the  noun  with  a  prep.,  and 
means  swift  course,  or  haste.  We  might  well  translate :  being  hastened 
swiftly.  Our  English  translators  derived  the  word  rs^  from  S]1S  to  fly, 
and  have  rendered  the  phrase  accordingly.  But  £]3£  means  simply  to 
hasten,  in  its  primary  sense,  and  indicates  nothing  of  the  manner  in 
which  swiftness  is  effected.  How  long  Daniel  was  making  supplication, 
and  of  course  how  long  Gabriel  was  in  actually  coming  to  him,  we  know 
not.  Daniel's  recorded  prayer  is,  in  all  probability,  only  a  specimen  or 
summary  of  what  he  uttered  on  the  occasion  which  called  it  forth.  —  sab , 
Part,  with  a  praeterite  meaning,  §  131.  1.  and  2.  c. 

(22)  And  he  made  explanation,  and  talked  with  me,  and  said :  0  Daniel,  I  have 
come  forth  to  teach  thee  understanding. 

The  first  "ja^  is  a  summary  of  what  the  angel  did,  on  this  occasion.  — 
He  talked  with  me  indicates  a  continued  colloquy.  —  '•raJOl  prefaces  a 
quotation  of  words  spoken.  —  na^a  meaning  of  anything,  understanding, 
intelligence.  Of  what  ?  Of  the  prophecies  in  Jer.,  say  Lengerke  and 
others.  But  then  ftran  would  be  almost  of  necessity  employed  in  such 
a  case.  We  should  therefore  give  to  tta^a  a  more  generic  sense,  and 
then  the  phrase  =  to  impart  to  thee  understanding,  viz.  respecting  thy 
people.  This  confines  the  sequel  neither  to  the  predictions  of  Jeremiah, 
nor  to  the  vision  in  ch.  viii.  These  limits  would  be  too  narrow  for 
vs.  24—27. 

(23)  At  the  beginning  of  thy  supplications,  a  word  went  forth,  and  I  am  come  to 
tell  thee,  for  thou  art  greatly  beloved  ;  mark  well  then  the  word,  and  understand  the 


n ,  plur.  of  intensity,  lit.  loves  =  Lat.  deliciae.  —  •O'n  x^ ,  a  word, 
sentence,  or  communication  went  forth.  From  whom  ?  The  text  does 
not  say  explicitly  from  what  quarter  it  proceeded.  But  the  implication 
scarcely  admits  of  a  doubt.  The  word  or  communication  must  have 
come  from  some  one  superior  to  the  angel ;  for  his  errand  is  to  convey 
and  declare  it :  /  am  come  ^anb ,  to  declare  [it].  Some  supply  tjb  (to 
thee)  after  the  verb  in  the  Inf.  To  this  there  is  no  urgent  objection  ; 
but  even  in  case  this  view  of  the  ellipsis  is  admitted,  it  is  necessary  to 
supply  it  (viz.  the  word)  after  Tanb ,  for  this  verb  surely  falls  back  upon 


264  CHAP.  IX.  24. 

n^  ,  and  must  have  a  direct  object.  —  The  last  two  clauses  of  the  verse 
make  all  this  plain:  Mark  well  then,  or  consider  well,  the  word  (^Q'na), 
where  the  article  points  of  course  to  the  preceding  ~\tt  .  —  Vision  has 
not  exactly  the  same  sense  as  "O'n  message,  but  means  both  the  appear 
ance  of  Gabriel  and  the  developments  which  he  makes.  In  other  words  ; 
the  prophecy  itself  and  the  manner  in  which  it  is  communicated,  are  re 
quired  to  be  objects  of  special  attention  on  the  part  of  Daniel,  for  they 
are  deserving  of  his  most  serious  consideration.  I  do  not  see  any  way 
of  fairly  avoiding  the  interpretation,  which  regards  the  angel  as  having 
received  from  God  the  communication  that  follows,  and  as  specially  de 
puted  to  make  this  communication  to  Daniel.  This  is  a  plain  and  sim 
ple  view  of  the  matter  ;  and  this  turn  of  the  sentiment  is  altogether 
apposite  to  the  exigencies  of  the  case  before  us.  The  first  w  in  v.  23, 
not  having  the  article,  can  point  to  no  previous  or  well  known  communi 
cation,  antecedent  to  the  period  then  passing.  A  (not  the)  communica 
tion,  therefore,  must  be  its  meaning.  What  this  communication  is,  re 
mains  yet  to  be  explained.  The  second  in'nn  ,  having  the  article,  of 
course  points  to  the  preceding  one.  But  this  second  one  has  a  clear  re 
lation  to  the  communication  which  follows.  The  exegesis  which  makes 
both  of  these  refer  to  STirn  •n'n  in  v.  2,  is  clearly  ungrammatical.  Were 
this  the  case,  both  must  have  the  article.  We  cannot  admit,  with  Len- 
gerke,  that  the  angel  only  undertakes  a  new  and  mystical  interpretation 
of  Jeremiah's  predictions  concerning  the  seventy  weeks. 

(24)  Seventy  weeks  are  decided  respecting  thy  people  and  thy  holy  city,  to  re 
strain  transgression,  and  to  seal  up  sin,  and  to  expiate  iniquity  ;  and  to  bring  in  ever 
lasting  righteousness,  and  to  seal  vision  and  prophecy,  and  to  anoint  a  holy  of  holies. 


aia,  from  Stoiy,  and  of  an  irregular'  masc.  plur.  form,  retaining  (T) 
under  the  first  radical,  (normally  it  would  read  d^rnd).  The  masc.  plur. 
occurs  only  in  the  paragraph  before  us,  and  in  Dan.  10:  2,  3.  The  fern. 
form  nisaia  also  retains  the  (  T  )  of  the  first  radical.  Why  ?  none  of  the 
lexicons  or  grammars  tell  us.  Fuerst  (Concord.)  says  :  "  retento  Qamets 
sibili"  in  respect  to  the  plural  forms  ;  by  which  I  suppose  him  to  mean, 
that  sibilant  letters  have  a  propensity  to  a  Qamets  vowel-sound.  If  this 
be  his  assertion,  it  needs  illustration  and  confirmation.  It  is  disputed 
whether  the  masc.  singular  occurs  ;  but  as  the  Masoretic  text  of  Gen. 
29:  27,  28  stands  (nxt  yyo  &6s),  there  is  a  clear  instance  of  a  masc. 
form  in  a  const,  state,  from  s^iato  ,  showing  that  the  Qamets  in  the  sing. 
is  mutable.  Wieseler  however,  (Die  70  Wochen,  s.  14),  says  that  "the 
Masorites  have  certainly  erred,"  and  that  we  should  read  nxt  yyy  ,  i.  e. 
these  seven  (years),  lit.  this  heptade  (of  years).  As  the  form  of  the  nu- 


CHAP.  IX.  24.  265 


meral  is  sing,  and  fern.  (§  96.  1),  it  may  be  united  with  nxt  ;  and 
seems  to  be  fairly  implied,  as  any  one  may  see  by  comparing  Gen.  29: 
18,  20,  27  together.  If  this  criticism  be  just,  (it  seems  to  me  plainly  to 
be  so),  then  we  have  no  instance  of  a  masc.  form  of  the  word  in  ques 
tion,  out  of  the  book  of  Daniel.  This  however  will  prove  nothing  against 
the  existence  of  one,  since  it  is  altogether  a  feasible  form.  The  simple 
truth  is,  that  both  fi^saia  and  m'sats  are  participial  forms,  meaning  be- 
sevened,  (sit  venia  !),  i.  e.  computed  by  sevens.  Lit.  then  we  might  trans 
late  thus  :  Heptades  seventy  are  decided  upon,  etc.  This  leaves  the 
question  entirely  open,  whether  the  meaning  is  heptades  of  days,  or  of 
ordinary  years,  or  of  sabbatical  years  ;  and  this  question  must  be  decided 
of  course  by  the  context.  The  Jews  had  three  kinds  of  Heptades  in  re 
spect  to  time  ;  first,  that  of  days,  seven  of  which  make  a  week  ;  secondly, 
that  of  years,  seven  of  which  make  a  sabbatical  year,  Lev.  25:  1  —  7  ; 
thirdly,  that  of  the  seven  periods  of  years  before  the  jubilee-year,  for  this 
last  comprises  seven  times  seven  years  =  forty-nine  years,  after  which 
comes  the  jubilee-year,  Lev.  25:  8.  Which  of  these  three  is  meant  in 
the  present  case  ?  for  the  clause  before  us  may  be  interpreted  in  either 
way.  Not  the  first,  for  this  would  make  but  about  a  year  and  a  half  for 
the  fulfilment  of  all  that  is  predicted  in  the  sequel,  and  would  fill  the 
passage  with  contradictions.  Wieseler,  indeed,  in  his  work  quoted  above, 
has  labored  to  show,  that  the  first  mentioned  seventy  weeks  are  merely 
literal  and  common  weeks  ;  for  he  holds  that  the  sequel  in  v.  24  refers 
merely  to  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  a  restoration  to  all 
the  rites  and  privileges  of  worship  as  prescribed  by  Moses,  with  an  ac 
companying  reformation  of  moral  demeanor.  But  the  subsequent  week* 
he  counts  as  year-weeks,  i.  e.  periods  of  seven  years  each.  Ingenious 
and  acute  as  this  writer  surely  is,  I  cannot  accord  with  this  view  of  the 
case  ;  for,  (1)  It  makes  a  violent  disruption  in  the  meaning  of  n^rrr  ,  to 
translate  it  weeks  of  days  in  v.  24,  and  then  weeks  of  years  in  the  follow 
ing  verses  of  the  same  paragraph.  (2)  Nothing  seems  plainer,  than  that 
the  tripartite,  7,  62,  1,  are  designed  to  make  up  the  number  seventy 
stated  in  v.  24  ;  and  of  course,  the  seventy  at  the  outset  must  have  the 
same  relation  to  n^sais  ,  that  the  subsequent  numbers  (the  component 
parts  of  it)  have  ;  and  Wieseler  himself  concedes,  that  in  vs.  25  —  27 
dWia  means  week-years,  i.  e.  heptades  of  years.  (3)  The  application 
of  the  magnificent  promises,  in  v.  24,  merely  to  a  partial  return  from 
exile,  and  to  the  broken  and  troubled  state  (tprnsn  pixa  ,  v.  25)  of  the 
Jews  for  a  long  period  (62  weeks),  is  something  that  savors  too  much  of 
deducere  aliquid  ex  aliquo,  to  commend  itself  to  the  simple  interpreter. 
There  is  too  much  of  what  the  Germans  name  a  hinein-exegesiren,  to 

23 


266  CHAP.  IX.  24. 

meet  with  cordial  reception.  Hoffman  (Weiss,  und  Erfull.  s.  298)  rightly 
says  respecting  it:  "The  universality  with  which  the  consummation 
of  all  the  hopes  of  Israel  is  here  spoken  of,  renders  it  impossible  for  any 
one  to  interpret  it,  except  in  an  arbitrary  way,  as  merely  applying  to  the 
scanty  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile  by  permission  of  Cyrus  —  a 
return  which  hardly  satisfied  the  anticipations  respecting  it."  —  We  may 
therefore  abide  by  uniform  consistency  through  the  whole  paragraph,  in 
the  use  of  Q^MIB  •  Then,  of  course,  we  must  regard  the  meaning  as  = 
7  x  70  =  490  years. 

"~~So  long  a  time,  or  thus  much  ground,  is  comprised  in  the  prediction  ; 
not  because  this,  (reckoned  in  any  feasible  way),  reaches  down  to  the 
Messianic  period,  but  because  so  much  of  the  time  intervening,  before 
the  Messiah  would  appear,  is  for  the  most  part 'troublous  time,' and 
resembles  in  this  respect,  that  of  the  seventy  years'  Babylonish  exile. 
The  speaker  means  to  say :  '  The  Messiah  will  surely  come,  and  Jerusa 
lem  will  be  restored  in  a  high  and  spiritual  sense ;  but  before  all  this 
takes  place,  there  must  be,  not  seventy  years  of  literal  exile  again,  but 
seventy  times  seven  years  of  trouble  and  of  trial.  How  soon  after  this 
is  over,  the  king  of  the  new  and  last  dominion  will  make  his  appearance, 
the  speaker  does  not  say,  nor  does  the  context  inform  us.  Enough  that 
the  days  of  peculiar  trial  and  trouble  like  those  of  the  Babylonian  exile, 
will  pass  away  within  the  period  named ;  for  that  period  ^F)Ft3 ,  i.  e.  is 
definitely  limited  or  decided. 

As  to  the  masc.  form  tnsattJ  being  employed  here,  in  all  probability 
the  speaker  meant  to  attract  special  attention  to  the  word  so  important 
in  the  sequel,  and  therefore  he  has  put  it  first,  as  well  as  given  to  it  a 
peculiar  form.  He  may  also  have  been  influenced  in  his  choice  of  the 
form,  by  the  t^sad  which  follows ;  or  it  may  have  been  the  prevailing 
dialect  of  the  day.  That  he  designs  to  designate  heptades  of  years  by  it, 
would  seem  quite  probable,  if  we  merely  compare  10:  2,  3,  where  D^ai 
is  added  after  it  in  order  to  explain  it,  and  to  tell  the  reader  that  he 
does  not  mean  a  5*0 £3  of  the  same  length  or  of  the  same  kind  as  before. 
No  explanation  is  needed,  however,  in  the  present  case,  except  what  the 
context  gives.  Daniel's  meditation  had  been  upon  the  seventy  simple 
years  predicted  by  Jeremiah.  The  angel  tells  him.  that  a  new-seventy, 
i.  e.  seventy  week-years  or  seven  times  seventy  years,  await  his  people, 
before  their  final  deliverer  will  come.  The  reader  almost  spontaneously 
adopts  this  view  of  the  meaning,  who  is  familiar  with  the  week-years  of 
the  Hebrews.  As  to  the  third  way  in  which  the  Hebrews  used  the 
word  ssaEJ ,  it  designated  the  jubilee-year  =  forty-nine  years  or  seven 
times  seven.  If  now  we  choose  this  last  period  as  the  meaning  of  B^ysattS , 


CHAP.  IX.  24.  267 

then  we  should  have  49x70  =  3430  years  —  a  period  incredible,  on 
every  ground,  in  respect  to  the  events  which  follow.  In  other  words, 
the  first  and  last  of  the  heptades  lead  to  inconsistency  or  absurdity ; 
neither  of  them,  therefore,  is  meant  by  the  text.  '  In  niedio  tutissimus,' 
one  may  safely  say,  in  the  present  case.  Nor  is  Daniel  alone  in  such  a 
mode  of  expression.  Gellius  (Noct.  Att.  III.  10)  makes  M.  Varro  say, 
that  he  had  written  septuaginta  hebaomadas  librorum.  The  like  in  Aristotle, 
Pol.  VII.  16;  and  in  Censorinus.  De  Die  natali,  c.  1 6. 

TjFjns  is  found  only  here,  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  but  is  more  com 
mon  in  Chaldee  and  Rabbinic.  The  literal  meaning  is  to  cut*  but  it  does 
not  necessarily  involve  the  adjunct  idea  to  cut  off".  The  Vulgate,  how 
ever,  has  rendered  it  abbreviatae  sunt,  probably  in  reference  to  the  idea 
that  lunar  months  are  here  to  be  counted  for  the  years,  rather  than 
solar  ones.  Wieseler  (s.  95  seq.)  defends  the  translation  abbreviated  or 
abridged,  and  represents  the  angel  as  designing  to  say,  that  the  period 
of  seventy  years'  exile,  as  foretold  by  Jeremiah,  is,  through  divine  mercy, 
and  in  answer  to  the  prayer  of  Daniel,  abridged.  As  he  makes  the  ex 
ile  to  begin  with  599  B.  C.,  (led,  as  he  says,  by  Matt.  1:12,  who  seems 
to  assign  its  beginning  to  the  deportation  of  Jechoniah),  so,  at  the  time 
when  Daniel  fasted  and  prayed,  only  sixty-three  years  of  it  had  passed 
away,  and  seven  years  were  therefore  to  be  abridged.  But  I  cannot 
admit  the  probability  of  such  an  explanation.  The  idea  of  abbreviation 
would  have  assumed  quite  another  form.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  see,  how 
Daniel,  in  case  he  began  the  exile  with  the  year  599  B.  C.  when  Je- 
hoiakim  was  carried  into  exile,  could  have  supposed  that  seventy  years 
had  already  come  very  near  to  the  close,  when  seven  years  were  yet 
lacking ;  for  the  three  first  verses  of  our  chapter  evidently  present  him 
as  supposing  this.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable,  if  chap.  1:  1  be  com 
pared,  that  Daniel  dates  the  exile  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim's  reign, 
or  at  least  the  attack  of  Nebuchadnezzar  upon  Jerusalem  ;  and  such  be 
ing  the  case,  there  is  no  room  for  abridging  the  seventy  years.  They 
are  already  on  the  point  of  expiring,  when  Daniel  betakes  himself  to 
prayer  and  fasting.  We  must  admit,  then,  the  figurative  sense  of  ^ririi , 
viz.  decided,  defined,  determined,  decreed;  for  so  the  Latin  decido 
means  in  its  figurative  sense,  while  lit.  it  means  cut  off;  and  so  the  Heb. 
"ita  and  -pn ,  and  the  Greek  vf'pvco.  I  would  not  aver,  that  simply  de 
creed  or  determined  would  adequately  translate  the  word,  for  it  evidently 
means  a  definitive  separation  of  the  weeks  in  question  from  the  mass  of 
time,  in  order,  that  what  is  included  m  this  separated  and  thus  defined 
part,  may  present  the  extent  of  the  ground  which  the  predictions  that 
follow  are  to  occupy.  In  other  words :  '  Seventy  weeks  are  definitely 


268  CHAP.  IX.  24. 

selected  and  decided  upon,'  as  a  period  in  which  various  things  are  to 
happen,  before  the  final  consummation  of  the  hopes  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
viz.  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah.  As  to  the  sing,  number  of  the  verb, 
I  see  no  need  of  so  much  difficulty  as  has  been  made.  The  seventy 
weeks  are  a  definite  period  here  genericatty  presented ;  and  as  such  they 
are  one.  The  sing,  number  of  the  verb,  therefore,  is  a  mere  case  of  con- 
structio  ad  sensum.  We  need  not  resort  (with  Hitzig)  to  the  passive 
form  impersonal,  as  retaining  the  Ace.,  nor  suppose  (with  Hengstenberg) 
n§  to  be  implied.  Comp.  the  like  in  Gen.  46:  22,  as  to  a  plur.  subject 
and  sing,  verb,  although  in  other  respects  the  case  will  not  afford  an  ex 
act  parallel  with  the  present  one. 

rjtthj?  W-^Sl  ^ny  bs> ,  upon  thy  people  and  upon  thy  holy  city.  Here 
I  have  rendered  ^3?  upon,  (in  the  version  above,  respecting},  in  order  to 
approach  nearer  to  the  true  idea  of  the  Hebrew ;  for  bs  often  designates 
the  idea  of  on  or  upon  in  the  sense  of  what  is  burdensome,  or  it  is  used 
in  what  the  lexicons  style  a  hostile  sense  ;  Ges.  Lex.  bs ,  4.  a.  Plainly 
it  is  so  here.  The  seventy  weeks  comprise  the  special  burden,  the  trials, 
the  troubles,  through  which  Israel  must  pass,  before  the  Great  Deliverer 
will  make  his  appearance,  or,  in  the  language  of  the  remainder  of  the  verse, 
before  sin  will  be  thoroughly  subdued  and  expiated,  and  righteousness  intro 
duced  in  the  full  measure  often  predicted. —  Thy  people  .  .  .  thy  holy  city, 
Wieseler  (p.  16)says,  'indicate  two  things;  (1)  That  the  blessings  promised 
pertain  only  to  the  Jews.  (2)  That  they  should  share  in  them  merely  on  Dan 
iel 's  account,  and  not  on  their  own.'  I  can  find  neither  of  these  intimations 
in  those  expressions.  Daniel  was  a  native  of  Jerusalem,  and  probably  of 
royal  origin  (1:3)  ;  and  so  we  have  thy  city.  Thy  people  means  simply  the 
people  to  which  he  belonged,  and  thy  city  is  merely  the  city  of  his  birth 
where  his  affections  centered.  There  is  doubtless,  however,  an  empha 
sis  beyond  this  in  the  word  thy.  Daniel  had  just  been  most  earnestly 
and  anxiously  pleading  in  behalf  of  the  city  and  people  to  which  he  be 
longed  ;  and  thy,  applied  to  both  of  them,  conveys  the  idea  of  a  people 
and  city  for  which  he  was  most  anxiously  concerned,  and  for  which  he 
had  just  made  such  fervent  intercession.  The  sequel  of  the  verse  does 
not  indeed  '  preach  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles  ;'  but  neither  does  it  con 
fine  the  promised  good  to  any  one  nation.  •  It  simply  assures  Daniel  that 
his  people  are  to  participate  in  it.  The  idea  that '  the  Jews  are  to  be 
blessed  merely  on  Daniel's  account,'  I  am  unable  to  find  in  the  passage. 

3>rSH  xlbsb ,  to  restrain  transgression  ;  which  version,  however,  takes 
for  granted  that  the  Kethibh,  Nibs  is  a  Piel  form  of  ttbs .  Most  of  the 
ancient  versions,  and  the  mass  of  recent  critics,  have  preferred  to  derive 
the  verb  from  Fibs ;  and  they  aver,  that  here  is  merely  an  exchange  of 


CHAP.  IX.  24.  269 

form  in  the  fib  verb,  for  a  form  of  xb ,  which,  as  all  concede,  is  a  frequent 
occurrence  ;  §  74.  Note  VI.  and  Note  22.  c.  ib.  Hence  they  translate 
thus :  to  consummate  transgression  or  to  Jill  up  the  measure  of  rebellion  ; 
meaning,  that  during  the  seventy  weeks,  rebellion  will  reach  its  acme, 
and  will  not  go  beyond.  Expressions  similar  to  this  there  are,  here  and 
there  in  the  Scriptures;  e.  g.  in  Gen.  15:  16,  "The  iniquity  of  the 
Amorites  is  not  yet  full"  (t&iu  &<V).  In  the  like  way  1  Thess.  2:  16, 
dvanktjQttiGai  rug  dpaQTias  ;  and  so  in  Dan.  8:  23,  D^iasn  tsnro .  But 
objections  not  easily  met,  may  be  made  against  this  view.  (1)  It  comes 
not  within  the  common  usages  of  grammar,  or  of  the  book  before  us,  to 
make  such  an  exchange  of  fi^s  for  a&3  here.  The  verb  nb3  elsewhere 
retains  its  n  throughout,  e.  g.  Dan.  9:  27.  11:  36,  and  in  Dan.  12:  7  we 
have  the  Inf.  Piel  ni^3 .  This  is  of  course  the  true  Inf.  of  the  Piel  of 
Jibs ;  and  where  Gesenius  and  others  find  a  Ji|3  Inf.  form,  (for  which 
they  say  K^3  is  substituted),  I  know  not.  It  is  an  Unding  in  grammar 
or  in  the  Heb.  usus  loquendi.  (2)  The  whole  sentiment  which  is  thus 
assigned  to  the  passage,  has  an  erroneous  basis.  They  understand  the 
speaker  as  now  describing  what  will  take  place  during  the  seventy 
weeks,  i.  e.  rebellion  will  then  be  consummated,  etc. ;  whereas  ik  seems 
to  lie  on  the  very  face  of  the  remainder  of  this  verse,  that  blessings  which 
are  to  follow  the  seventy  weeks  are  foretold.  I  would  not  deny,  that 
there  may  be  a  point  of  view,  from  which  one  may  regard  a  consumma 
tion  of  iniquity  as  desirable,  all  things  considered,  (for  then  comes  of 
course  the  hope  of  better  times)  ;  but  nowhere  in  the  Bible,  as  I  believe, 
can  it  be  found,  that  the  perfecting  of  rebellion  is  represented  as  a  bless 
ing,  either  present  or  in  promise.  If  this  view  is  correct,  it  is  decisive 
of  the  whole  question,  and  lays  entirely  aside  the  word  !"&3 ,  unless  it  be 
taken  in  another  and  very  different  sense,  viz.  that  of  completing  in  the 
sense  of  bringing  to  an  end,  destroying.  But  to  change  the  text  for  the 
sake  of  this  meaning,  when  ad3  comes  virtually  to  the  same  point,  and 
indicates  an  effectual  check  or  restraint  upon  sin,  is  both  unnecessary  and 
uncritical.  However,  against  retaining  ttlbs  as  a  regular  form  from  xbs 
it  is  objected,  that  the  word  has  no  Piel.  All  that  this  can  properly 
mean  is,  that  Piel  is  not  elsewhere  found.  But  how  many  verbs  are 
there  in  the  Hebrew,  in  the  same  predicament,  i.  e.  where  only  one  ex 
ample  of  this  conjugation,  or  of  that,  can  be  found  ?  «b3  has  a  transitive 
as  well  as  intransitive  sense  (Num.  11:  28.  Ece.  8:  8,  al.)  ;  and  it 
may  have  a  Piel  of  intensity  or  of  habitual  action  ;  which  is  the  very 
meaning  appropriate  to  the  passage  before  us.  Then  what  objection  can 
be  made  to  the  idea  of  restraining,  or  rather  of  habituatty  and  powerfully 
restraining  SttJS?  This  last  word  is  the  most  intense  designation  of 

23* 


270  CHAP.  IX.  24. 

wickedness,  as  it  combines  the  idea  of  apostasy  and  rebellion.  Both  of 
these  the  prophet  had  confessed,  in  his  prayer  (vs.  5 — 11),  to  be  charge 
able  upon  Israel.  These  had  taken  the  lead  in  bringing  down  divine 
judgments  upon  the  nation.  Hence  the  SiBBfi  (the  transgression)  as  it  is 
named  in  our  text ;  viz.  the  apostasy  and  rebellion  already  described. 
When  the  Great  Deliverer  shall  come,  he  will  effectually  restrain  such 
transgressions  as  bring  down  divine  judgments  upon  the  nation  and  send 
it  into  exile.  The  allegation  of  Lengerke  and  some  others,  that  ttbs , 
which  means  to  shut  up,  enclose,  as  well  as  to  restrain,  should  have  the 
first  of  these  meanings  assigned  to  it  here,  because  to  shut  up  transgres 
sion  means  to  hide  it  or  conceal  it,  and  so  to  forgive  it,  has  no  foundation 
in  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  word.  When  a  Hebrew  spoke  of  covering 
sin  in  such  a  sense,  he  employed  ft&3  or  1S3 .  The  text  of  the  Kethibh 
may  stand  therefore  untouched ;  and  the  meaning  of  it  as  it  is,  seems 
to  be  altogether  apposite  to  the  purpose  of  the  speaker, 

nixisn  tannb^i ,  and  to  seal  up  sins,  where  the  vowel-points  of  the  verb 
belong  to  the  marginal  Qeri,  onfibsi  >  Hiph.  Inf.  of  n?an .  The  text  should 
be  pointed  and  read  ts'nnb1] ,  as  in  the  sequel.  The  imagery  of  the  lan 
guage  is  evidently  progressive.  First  we  have  the  restraining,  lit.  shut 
ting  up  ;  then  this  work  is  completed  by  putting  a  seal  upon  it ;  comp. 
Matt.  27:  66.  Where  we  use  bars  and  bolts  only,  in  many  cases  the  an 
cients  also  employed  seals,  in  order  to  make  sure  the  object  thus  enclosed 
and  guarded.  See  Lex.  The  literal  meaning  would  be  plain  ;  the 
prisoner  is  first  shut  up,  then  the  seal  is  put  upon  his  prison  door.  Thus 
Job  9:  7,  God  seals  up  the  stars,  i.  e.  prevents  them  from  shining  ; 
Job  37:  7,  he  seals  up  the  hand  of  all  men,  i.  e.  hinders  them  from  any 
development  of  activity.  So  here ;  to  seal  up  sins,  is  to  render  them 
inert,  inefficient,  powerless.  They  are  not  only  restrained,  but  rendered 
unable  to  break  out,  and  bring  men  into  danger  of  punishment.  The 
other  reading  in  the  Qeri,  viz.  fiPftbsi  arose,  in  all  probability,  from  a 
comparison  with  8:  23,  where  we  have  D*vsJi2S>n  tsnna ,  when  transgress 
ors  have  come  to  the  full  [measure  of  their  sin].  But  this  meaning  does 
not  fit  in  9:  24.  It  is  what  follows  the  70  weeks,  which  is  predicted  ; 
and  after  their  expiration,  there  is  no  time  for  the  consummating  of  wick 
edness  ;  the  time  has  come  to  seal  it  up,  as  God  does  the  stars  and  the 
hand  of  all  men,  i.  e.  to  render  it  inefficient,  incapable  of  acting  at  liberty. 
With  Wieseler,  then,  we  may  justly  prefer  the  text  as  it  stands,  to  any  of 
the  changes  proposed.  The  objection  of  Ewald,  that  in  such  a  case  we 
must  suppose  a  repetition  of  the  same  word  too  speedily,  amounts  to  but 
little ;  for  in  the  next  three  verses,  -pn  and  fc^ui  are  thrice  repeated.  Be 
sides,  the  second  case  of  fcnn  differs  in  the  shade  of  its  meaning  from  the 
first  case. 


CHAP.  IX.  24.  271 

•ps  iQi^  ,  lit  to  cover  sin  ;  but  this  would  not  answer  well  here,  inas 
much  as  sin  is  already  shut  up  and  sealed  upon.  It  must  then  have  one 
of  the  two  tropical  meanings  which  the  word  bears,  viz.  either  that  of 
forgiving  sin,  or  that  of  expiating  it.  Either  meaning  would  suit  the 
tenor  of  the  passage,  the  amount  of  which  is,  that  sin  is  either  to  be  put 
under  entire  restraint,  as  in  the  case  of  obstinate  offenders  ;  or  to  be 
forgiven  or  atoned  for,  as  in  the  case  of  the  penitent.  In  one  way  or 
another  the  power  of  sin  to  do  mischief,  or  to  occasion  condemnation,  is 
to  be  crippled.  How  well  the  idea  of  atonement  accords  with  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  as  the  prominent  feature  in  the  development  of  the  Mes 
sianic  period,  none  need  to  be  informed.  Why  not  admit  it  here,  where 
the  angel  is  dwelling  upon  the  distinguished  blessings  which  will  follow 
the  70  weeks  of  troublous  times  ?  Its  appropriateness  can  hardly  be 
doubted. 

OSiTp5! ,  to  introduce  everlasting  righteousness,  i.  e.  the 
&eov  of  Paul,  in  his  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians. 
It  is  everlasting,  because  the  Messiah's  kingdom  is  so,  Dan.  1:  44.  7:  14, 
27.  It  is  introduced,  because  it  is  of  God's  giving,  and  is  procured  by 
the  Messiah.  The  people  are  to  be  transgressors  no  more,  so  as  to  need 
punishment  and  exile.  The  first  three  arfyoi  disclose  the  negative  por 
tion  of  what  is  to  be  effected.  Sin  is  to  be  checked,  and  removed. 
Now  comes  the  positive  part ;  righteousness,  viz.  that  of  the  heart  and 
life  which  God  bestows,  (not  p"ix  in  the  sense  of  prosperity),  that 
righteousness  which  is  the  opposite  of  a  sinful  state,  is  to  be  the  charac 
teristic  of  the  new  kingdom. 

2*1331  "pm  Dhnbi,  lit.  to  seal  vision  and  prophet,  where  seal  has 
the  sense  of  confirming,  authenticating.  A  seal  was  put  at  the  end  of  a 
writing,  to  show  that  it  was  completed  and  was  authentic.  Prophecy  is 
open  so  long  as  it  remains  unfulfilled.  When  it  is  fulfilled,  it  is  completed, 
which  is  one  of  the  tropicaljueanings  of  the  verb  cnn  .  The  old  dispen 
sation  was  one  of  "  types  and  shadows  of  good  things  to  come,"  and  in 
its  very  nature  prophetic.  Under  it  many  predictions  concerning'  the  Mes 
sianic  period  were  uttered ;  when  that  comes,  these  are  sealed,  completed, 
authenticated.  Of  course  the  good  which  those  prophecies  foretold  is 
here  in  the  speaker's  mind.  —  &P3D ,  prophet,  has  reference  to  the  person 
who  foretels,  and  "pm  is  his  prophetic  vision.  Both  are  included  here, 
because  not  only  the  vision  is  completed  or  fulfilled,  but  the  character 
and  claims  of  the  prophet  are  authenticated.  If  this  view  be  correct, 
then  nnnb  ,  in  this  last  case,  has  plainly  a  different  shade  of  meaning 
from  that  in  which  it  is  first  employed.  Surely  no  one  critically  conver 
sant  with  the  Scriptures  needs  to  be  told,  that  cases  of  this  nature  are  by 


272  CHAP.  IX.  24. 

no  means  of  unfrequent  occurrence.  The  idea  of  sealing  up  vision  and 
prophet  by  the  death  of  Christ,  or  by  his  coming  and  repealing  the  old 
dispensation,  is  quite  foreign  from  the  passage  before  us.  Besides,  were 
there  no  visions  and  no  prophets  under  the  new  dispensation  ?  So  Peter 
did  not  view  the  matter,  Acts  2:JLZ:  21.  To  maintain,  as  Wieseler  does 
(s.  17),  that  the  vision  to  be  sealed  or  confirmed  is  only  that  of  Jere 
miah  (25:  11),  is  palpably  aside  from  the  scope  of  the  passage,  which  is 
of  an  extent  much  wider.  Besides,  this  view  of  the  matter  would  involve 
a  vGTSQor  TIQOTKQOV.  All  here  related  is  to  follow  the  70  weeks  ;  but  the 
return  from  the  captivity  did  not  follow  them.  It  occurred  while  they 
were  in  transitu,  and  during  the  early  part  of  them.  Wieseler  escapes 
from  this,  only  by  making  the  70  weeks,  in  the  verse  before  us,  to  mean 
merely  70  weeks  of  days,  which  passed  away  before  the  proclamation  of 
Cyrus  in  Ezra  i.  ;  a  new  exegesis,  I  admit,  but  hardly  a  true  one. 

D'^.B'ig  UJ'nP  nutebl  ,  and  to  anoint  a  Holy  of  Holies.  Is  it  the  Jewish 
sanctuary  which  is  to  be  rebuilt  and  anointed,  i.  e.  consecrated  to  the 
service  of  God  again  ?  Or  is  it  a  new  sanctuary,  such  as  becomes  the 
new  spiritual  dispensation  ?  Not  the  former ;  for  then  the  article  could 
not  fail  before  Q^W^ .  Never  is  it  omitted  in  any  case,  where  holy  of  holies 
means  the  most  holy  place  in  the  temple.  The  insertion  of  the  article 
here  would  have  misled  the  reader,  and  naturally  obliged  him  to  inter 
pret  the  passage  as  designating  the  sanctuary  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 
when  rebuilt.  In  the  present  case,  a  sanctuary ,  i.  e.  such  an  one  as  is 
appropriate  to  the  new  state  of  things,  is  designated.  Of  such  an  one  the 
writer  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  speaks  :  "  Christ,  the  high-priest  of 
good  things  to  come,  when  he  presented  himself  through  a  greater  and 
more  perfect  tabernacle  .  .  .  not  with  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  but  by 
his  own  blood,  once  for  all  entered  £<V  ra  ayia,  into  the  sanctuary,  pro 
curing  eternal  redemption."  Heb.  9:  11,  12.  (Ta  cHyia,  and  r<x  ayia 
lav  ayiwv  are  N.  Test,  names  for  B^en^  izh'p)-  This  is  the  sanctu 
ary  belonging  to  that  temple,  under  whose  altar  the  Apocalyptist  saw  the 
supplicating  souls  of  the  martyrs,  Rev.  6:  9,  comp.  also  8:  3.  9: 13.  14: 
18,  Rev.  11:  19  speaks  of  "the  temple  of  God  ...  in  heaven,  where 
was  seen,  in  his  temple,  the  ark  of  his  testament  or  covenant."  And 
although  in  the  New  Jerusalem  there  will  be  no  temple  (Rev.  21:  22), 
yet  before  the  final  consummation  of  all  things,  the  spiritual  temple  in 
heaven,  the  archetype  of  the  earthly  one  (Heb.  8:  5),  is  always  spoken  of 
by  the  Hebrew  sacred  writers,  in  the  New  Test,  and  in  the  Old,  as  having 
an  existence.  It  is  that  into  which  Christ  as  high  priest  enters,  and 
presents  his  own  propitiatory  blood,  Heb.  9: 11 — 14.  To  anoint  the  sanc 
tuary  there,  of  course  means  to  prepare  it  for  this  new  offering  ;  just  as 


CHAP.  IX.  25.  273 

the  tabernacle  and  all  its  furniture  was  anointed,  it  order  to  prepare  it 
for  sacrifices  and  oblations,  Ex.  40:  9.  Indeed  the  phrase  D'VS'njD  shp 
might  be  regarded  as  meaning  temple  instead  of  sanctuary  merely  ;  for  in 
Num.  18:  10  it  is  so  employed,  with  the  article  before  the  second  noun, 
and  in  Ezek.  45:  3  without  the  article.  Yet  I  feel  no  need  of  resorting  to 
this,  as  Hoffman  does,  (Die  siebenzig  Jahre,  s.  65).  The  expression  is 
more  vivid,  if  we  take  the  thing  as  presented  in  Heb.  9: 11 — 14.  If  Paul 
"  knew  nothing  else  among  the  Corinthians  but  Jesus  Christ  and  him  cru 
cified"  and  "  gloried  in  nothing  save  the  cross  of  Christ,"  then  the  pre 
sentation  of  atoning  blood  in  the  eternal  sanctuary,  is  the  cause  and  con 
summation  of  all  the  blessings  promised  under  the  new  dispensation. 
To  anoint  that  sanctuary  stands  connected  with  this  service  in  the  temple 
above.  Not  that  we  are  to  suppose  a  material  literal  sense  should  be  given 
to  any  of  these  descriptions,  but  that  they  are  significant  as  symbolical  or 
figurative.  As  God  is  a  spirit,  his  sanctuary,  and  the  heaven  which  he 
has  prepared,  are  spiritual.  Very  significant  surely  must  the  language 
of  our  text  have  been,  to  a  Hebrew  under  the  ancient  dispensation. 
Wieseler  (s.  18)  applies  the  passage  under  discussion  to  the  altar  men 
tioned  in  Ezra  3:  2,  and  remarks,  (which  is  true),  that  the  altar  is  some 
times  designated  Q^1!^  ianp ,  as  in  Ex.  29:  37.  30:  29.  I  have  no 
objections  to  altar  as  the  meaning ;  but  that  any  altar  built  by  Jeshua 
or  Zerubbabel  corresponded  to  the  one  mentioned  here,  (if  the  passage  in 
deed  is  to  be  so  interpreted),  I  cannot  admit.  Well  has  Hoffman  said, 
(I  repeat  it),  that '  an  interpretation  which  assigns  to  v.  24  only  a  descrip 
tion  of  the  literal  return  from  Babylon  and  its  immediate  consequences,  is 
arbitrary?  In  fact,  such  an  exegesis  would  at  once  show,  that  the  lan 
guage  of  the  speaker  on  the  present  occasion  is  extravagant  and  bombastic. 
The  interpretation  which  assigns  to  holy  of  holies  a  concrete  sense, 
and  makes  it  apply  to  Christ  himself,  (C.  B.  Michaelis,  Hav.),  or  which 
makes  it  mean  the  church  (Hengst.)  is  inadmissible.  The  phrase  never 
designates  persons.  Besides,  to  apply  it  to  the  Messiah,  would  represent 
him  as  performing  his  whole  work,  before  he  is  consecrated  to  it; 
whereas  the  offering  which  he  presents  in  the  eternal  sanctuary  is  the 
consummation  of  his  mediatorial  work. 

(25)  Mark  well  and  understand;  from  the  going  forth  of  a  command  to  rebuild 
Jerusalem  unto  an  anointed  one,  a  prince,  shall  be  seven  weeks ;  and  sixty  and  two 
weeks  shall  it  be  rebuilt,  with  broad  spaces  and  narrow  limits,  and  in  troublous 
times. 

The  preceding  verse  in  a  generic  way  announces  seventy  weeks,  which 
must  pass  away  before  a  new  and  glorious  period  is  ushered  in,the  charac 
teristics  of  which  are,  the  restraining  and  forgiving  of  sin,  and  the  intro- 


274  CHAP.  IX.  25. 

duetion  of  holiness  and  righteousness  under  a  new  dispensation.  This 
is  indeed  the  consummation,  to  which  the  whole  passage  in  vs.  24 — 27 
has  relation.  But  vs.  25 — 27  are  designed  to  answer  the  question  that 
would  naturally  arise  in  the  mind  of  Daniel :  *  What  then  is  to  take 
place  during  this  long  interval  of  waiting  for  the  accomplishment  of  our 
highest  hope  ? '  The  angel  informs  him  that  the  so-named  seventy  weeks 
may  be  subdivided  into  three  portions,  viz.  into  seven,  sixty-two,  and  one. 
Each  of  these  portions  has  peculiarities  of  its  own,  which  mark  and  dis 
tinguish  it.  The  period  of  seven  weeks  has  a  definitive  beginning  and 
end,  by  which  it  is  distinguished,  viz.  "  from  the  going  forth  of  a  com 
mand  to  rebuild  Jerusalem  unto  an  anointed  one,  a  prince,"  thus  ma 
king  the  terminus  a  quo  and  ad  quern.  The  second  has  no  expressed 
terminus  a  quo,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  case  it  has  apparently  an 
implied  one,  viz.  the  end  of  the  first  period,  or  the  appearance  of  an 
"anointed  one,  a  prince."  This  takes  for  granted,  that  the  periods 
named  here  are  successive,  and  not  parallel  or  contemporaneous.  Such, 
it  seems  to  me,  is  the  first  and  spontaneous  impression  of  every  unbiassed 
reader ;  for  how  else  can  the  period  of  seventy  weeks  be  made  out?  The 
end  of  the  second  period  is  of  course  the  end  of  the  sixty-two  weeks,  i.  e. 
sixty-two  weeks  from  the  appearance  of  the  anointed  one,  the  prince. 
But  the  end  seems  also  to  be  marked  by  another  circumstance,  viz.  the 
cutting  off"  of  an  anointed  one.  So  v.  26:  "  After  ( ^nx )  sixty-two 
weeks,  an  anointed  one  shall  be  cut  off."  Naturally  this  does  not  mean 
some  indefinite  time  afterwards,  but  a  time  in  near  proximity  with  the 
end  of  the  second  period.  The  third  period  (one  week)  of  course  begins 
with  the  same  excision  of  an  anointed  one,  and  continues  seven  years, 
during  which  a  foreign  prince  shall  come,  and  lay  waste  the  city  and 
sanctuary  of  Jerusalem,  and  cause  the  offerings  to  cease  for  three  and  a 
half  years,  after  which  utter  destruction  shall  come  upon  him,  vs.  26,  27. 
Thus  much  for  the  definite  beginning  and  end  of  the  respective  peri 
ods,  considered  as  successive.  We  have  further  to  say,  respecting  them, 
that  each  has  its  own  appropriate  occurrences.  The  first  period  (seven 
weeks)  has  indeed  no  specific  and  express  description  of  events,  which 
are  to  take  place,  attached  to  it.  But  the  command  to  restore  and  rebuild 
seems  to  imply  that  the  work  was  to  be  entered  upon  and  advanced.  The 
second  period  is  characterized  by  the  continued  rebuilding,  but  in  a  stinted 
or  scanty  measure,  because  of  "  troublous  times."  Nothing  of  this  kind 
is  said  of  the  first  period.  The  third  period  is  characterized  by  the 
occurrence  of  events,  which  have  been  stated  in  the  preceding  paragraph. 
Thus  each  is  distinguished  from  the  other,  not  merely  by  limitation  of 
time,  but  by  the  events  which  were  to  take  place  respectively  in  each. 


CHAP.  IX.  25.  275 

After  taking  this  brief  survey  of  the  three  component  parts  of  the 
seventy  weeks,  and  having  seen  how  they  are  separated  and  distinguished 
from  each  other,  let  us  now  return  to  the  seventy  weeks,  i.  e.  the  generic 
period,  and  inquire  where  we  are  to  begin  in  counting  them. 

Daniel  regards  the  period  assigned  by  Jeremiah  as  very  near  its  close, 
9:  2.  He  prays  earnestly  for  the  restoration  of  his  people.  The  angel 
appears,  and  tells  him,  not  that  the  seventy  years  are  near  their  end 
(which  Daniel  already  well  knew),  but  that  in  the  councils  of  Heaven 
another  and  larger  period  is  assigned,  viz.  seven  times  seventy  years,  for 
still  further  trials  of  his  people,  before  the  great  consummation  of  their 
highest  hopes  will  be  realized.  When  then  does  this  new  period  of  490 
years  commence  ?  The  most  obvious  answer  a  priori  would  seem  to  be : 
From  the  time  when  Daniel  is  addressed.  But  the  events  assigned  to 
the  second  and  third  portions  of  the  general  period  forbid  this  answer. 
Daniel  saw  this  vision  in  B.  C.  538.  If  7  times  70  years  =  490  be  sub 
tracted  from  this,  it  would  bring  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  whole 
seventy  weeks  (counting  them  successively  and  continuously),  down  to 
B.  C.  48,  a  year  in  which  nothing  special  took  place  to  distinguish  it  from 
the  time  that  followed  after  it,  or  went  before  it.  All  correspondence  of 
prediction  with  event,  must  in  such  a  case,  be  given  up,  of  course,  if 
such  a  terminus  a  quo  be  adopted. 

Let  us  go  back  then  to  B.  C.  606,  the  time  from  which  Daniel  plainly 
dates  "the  desolations  of  Jerusalem"  (v.  2),  and  assume  this  as  the 
terminus  a  quo ;  in  this  case  the  seventy  weeks  would  end,  (counted  as 
before),  with  B.  C.  116;  a  period,  again,  which  offers  nothing  in  history 
to  distinguish  it,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  the  subject  of  the  following 
prophecy.  On  either  of  the  preceding  grounds,  then,  we  find  ourselves  ,>• 
at  a  complete  stand. 

If  we  go  on  now,  for  the  sake  of  trial,  and  endeavor  to  ascertain  the 
terminus  a  quo  of  the  first  part  of  the  seventy  weeks,  viz.  the  7  weeks 
=  49  years,  and  begin  the  count  from  B.  C.  606,  i.  e.  the  commence-  }*f 
ment  of  the  desolations,  then  we  must  end  the  first  period  with  B.  C. 
557,  a  period  when  there  was  as  yet  no  command  to  rebuild.  Nor  was 
there  any  anointed  one  and  prince  to  mark  the  end  of  the  seven  weeks 
at  that  time.  To  make  another  trial,  let  us  suppose  the  seven  weeks  to 
be  counted  from  the  exile  of  Jehoiachim,  599  B.  C.,  then  we  must  end 
them  with  B.  C.  550,  another  period  of  the  like  description  as  that  of 
B.  C.  557.  If  we  begin  these  weeks  with  the  captivity  of  Zedekiah  and 
the  actual  and  final  destruction  of  Jerusalem  B.  C.  588,  then  we  obtain 
539  B.  C.  as  the  end  of  the  period.  At  this  time  no  command  had  been 
given  to  rebuild  Jerusalem,  and  Darius  the  Mede  was,  or  was  about  to 


276  CHAP.  IX.  25. 

be,  possessed  of  the  Babylonish  throne,  who  surely  cannot  be  reckoned 
a  "PM  n"OT3  on  any  tolerable  ground.  At  all  events,  any  of  these  modes 
of  counting  would  be  utterly  at  variance  with  the  first  clause  in  the  verse 
before  us  ;  for  the  command  to  rebuild  precedes  the  forty-nine  years,  and 
the  anointed  prince  marks  the  close,  while,  in  case  Darius  be  made  the 
terminus  ad  quern,  no  such  command  had  been  given  seven  weeks  (i.  e. 
forty-nine  years)  before  he  was  king. 

The  same  difficulty  lies  in  the  way,  if  we  substitute  Cyrus  instead  of 
Darius.  According  to  Is.  45:  1,  we  might  apply  rpds  to  him,  for  Jeho 
vah  speaks  of  him  as  his  anointed  one;  and  a  "PS5,  i.  e.  preeminent 
civil  ruler,  he  certainly  was.  But  history  represents  Cyrus  as  himself 
issuing  a  decree  to  rebuild  (2  Chron.  36:  23.  Ezra  1:  1  seq.)  ;  and 
Cyrus  could  not  have  been  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  forty- 
nine  years,  either  at  one  and  the  same  time  or  at  any  time,  for  he  reigned 
only  seven  years  after  his  appearance  in  sacred  history.  If  we  take, 
now,  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  forty-nine  years  which  commence  with 
the  command  to  rebuild,  and  count  from  the  proclamation  of  Cyrus, 
(which  in  itself  would  agree  well  with  the  command  in  question),  then 
who  is  the  anointed  one  and  prince  at  the  end  of  those  forty-nine  years  ? 
Xerxes  was  then  on  the  throne,  whose  expedition  into  Greece  does  not 
favor  his  right  to  the  magnificent  title  in  question ;  and  whose  intended 
treatment  of  the  Jews,  at  the  instigation  of  Hainan,  as  related  in  the 
book  of  Esther,  favors  it  still  less.  Where  then  shall  we  look  for  the 
command  to  rebuild^  and  for  an  anointed  one,  a  prince,  forty-nine  years 
afterwards  ?  We  have  had  no  success  thus  far,  and  history  down  to  the 
time  of  Cyrus,  as  it  now  lies  before  us,  presents  us  with  no  data  from 
which  we  can  make  out  a  period  of  forty-nine  years  so  defined  by  events 
at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  them,  as  the  first  clause  in  v.  25  seems 
plainly  to  import  or  demand. 

If  we  go  lower  down  than  Cyrus,  we  find  under  Darius  Hystaspis 
the  decree  of  Cyrus  for  rebuilding  the  temple  renewed,  in  B.  C.  519, 
(Ezra  vi.)  ;  but  forty-nine  years  after  this  would  bring  us  again  into 
the  reign  of  Xerxes  (B.  C.  470),  who,  as  has  already  been  remarked, 
was  no  Tua  n^iaia .  If  we  descend  still  lower,  down  to  Artaxerxes  Lon- 
gimanus  (B.  C.  445),  who  gave  unto  Nehemiah  full  liberty  to  rebuild 
(Neli.  ii.),  then  the  seventy  weeks  would  reach  forty-five  years  beyond 
the  birth  of  Christ,  which  of  course  renders  null  this  calculation.  Be 
sides,  we  can  find  no  appropriate  anointed  one  and  prince,  forty-nine 
years  after  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes.  We  must  abandon  the  hope  then 
of  satisfying  ourselves  in  this  way,  as  to  the  limits  of  the  first  period, 
i.  e.  the  seven  weeks.  Nor  is  this  all  of  the  difficulty.  The  seven 


CHAP.  IX.  25.  277 

weeks,  (and  these  only),  are  destitute  of  any  express  intimation  of  what 
was  accomplished  or  happened,  during  their  continuance.  What  then, 
it  is  natural  to  inquire,  can  be  the  object  in  view  in  designating  them  ? 
Not  events,  as  it  would  seem,  during  the  forty-nine  years,  but  events 
mentioned  as  the  terminus  a  quo  and  ad  quern  of  those  years.  Of  course 
these  must  have  their  importance.  But  here  again  we  are  met  with 
difficulties.  The  command  to  rebuild  Jerusalem  —  when  ?  By  whom  ? 
After  what  destruction  of  it  ?  for  this  command  imports  of  course  an 
antecedent  destruction.  Was  this  by  Nebuchadnezzar?  Or  was  it  the 
more  partial  destruction  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ?  These  are  all  the 
considerable  destructions  of  which  history  gives  us  any  account,  before 
the  final  wasting  by  Titus.  But  this  last  is  out  of  question  ;  for  the  whole 
period  of  seventy  weeks,  (of  which  seven  are  a  part),  precedes  the  Mes 
sianic  period.  As  to  the  destruction  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  we  have  al 
ready  put  that  to  the  test.  There  remains,  as  history  now  stands,  only 
that  by  Antiochus.  If  Judas  Maccabaeus  gave  command  to  rebuild 
what  had  been  destroyed,  when  his  victories  were  consummated,  (as  he 
probably  did),  then  who  is  the  n^M  rni^a  that  makes  his  appearance 
forty-nine  years  after  this  ?  Judas  reinstated  the  temple  worship  B.  C. 
165,  so  that  forty-nine  years  would  bring  us  to  B.  C.  116.  There  was 
indeed  on  the  throne  of  Judea,  at  that  time,  the  most  eminent  prince 
that  ever  sat  upon  it  after  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile,  viz. 
John  Hyrcanus,  in  whose  praise  Josephus  is  uncommonly  lavish.  How 
ever,  he  did  not  commence  his  reign  then,  but  in  B.  C.  135,  i.  e.  nine 
teen  years  earlier.  Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  occurrences  of 
B.  C.  116,  which  distinguishes  that  year  from  any  other  of  the  thirty 
years  of  his  reign.  A  terminus  ad  quern,  therefore,  of  the  seven  weeks 
seems  to  be  looked  for  here  in  vain.  If  we  admit  that  the  seven  weeks 
must  precede  the  sixty-two  weeks,  (and  any  other  order  seems  to  be  un 
natural,  and  apparently  against  the  tenor  of  the  whole  passage),  then  we 
cannot  go  down  to  a  period  so  late  as  that  of  Judas  Maccabaeus  and 
Antiochus,  for  the  commencement  of  the  seven  weeks,  or  the  issuing  of 
the  command  to  rebuild. 

What  can  we  do  then,  or  where  shall  we  go,  to  find  the  appropriate 
limits  of  the  forty-nine  years?  Perplexed  by  questions  like  these, 
Vitringa,  Hengstenberg,  and  many  others,  have  adopted  a  peculiar 
course,  in  order  to  find  an  issue  from  these  straits.  First  they  have 
united  the  seven  weeks  into  one  mass  with  the  sixty-two  weeks,  thus 
making  in  effect  but  two  subdivisions  of  the  seventy  weeks,  viz.  one  of 
sixty-nine,  and  the  other  of  one.  This  is  built  on  the  assumption,  that 
the  command  to  rebuild,  spoken  of  in  v.  25,  is  that  which  was  given  by 

24 


278  CHAP.  IX.  25. 

Artaxerxes  in  the  twentieth  year  of  his  reign,  as  recorded  in  Neh.  ii. 
They  then  count  sixty-nine  weeks  (62+7)  forward,  i.  e.  483  years. 
But  as  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes  is  usually  reckoned  at  B.  C. 
445,  their  reckoning  makes  thirty-eight  years  too  much  on  this  ground. 
To  avoid  this,  they  reckon  some  thirty  years  of  it  to  the  private  life  of 
Jesus,  and  make  his  public  ministry  (not  his  birth)  the  terminus  ad  quern. 
Still  there  remain  some  eight  or  nine  years  too  much.  This  excess  is 
disposed  of,  by  adding  some  eight  or  nine  years  more  to  the  reign  of 
Artaxerxes  than  chronology  usually  reckons,  (which  would  make  his 
decree  so  much  earlier),  and  thus  making  the  time  to  adjust  itself  to  the 
events.  In  the  usual  chronology,  (vouched  for  by  Ctesias  and  Ptolemy 
in  his  Canon),  Artaxerxes  is  represented  as  reigning  forty  or  forty- 
one  years,  and  Xerxes  as  twenty  or  twenty-one.  Hengstenberg  insists 
upon  fifty-one  for  Artaxerxes,  and  eleven  for  Xerxes.  In  this  way  the 
twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes  falls  back  some  ten  years,  just  about 
enough  to  save  the  excess  above  mentioned,  made  by  carrying  forward 
the  sixty-nine  weeks  =  483  years.  The  terminus  a  quo,  then,  of  the 
sixty-nine  weeks,  is  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  to  rebuild,  Neh.  ii. ;  the 
terminus  ad  quern  is  the  *iiaa  rrnzte  in  the  emphatic  sense,  i.  e.  the  Lord's 
Anointed,  the  King  of  Israel,  when  he  enters  upon  his  public  office. 

Certainly  this  is  ingenious ;  and  the  result  is  rather  striking,  at  first 
view.  But  further  examination  throws  in  our  way  insuperable  obsta 
cles;  at  which,  however,  I  can  but  merely  hint.  (1)  The  main  assump 
tion,  that  Artaxerxes  was  the  first  who  issued  a  decree  to  rebuild  Jerusa 
lem,  (the  terminus  a  quo),  contradicts  fact  and  Scripture  both.  FACT 
—  inasmuch  as  Haggai.  (in  the  second  year  of  Darius  =  B.  C.  520), 
more  than  seventy  years  before  the  twentieth  of  Artaxerxes,  speaks  of 
the  people  as  u  dwelling  at  Jerusalem  in  ceiled  houses,"  while  the  house 
of  the  Lord  lies  waste,  Hagg.  1:  2 — 4;  SCRIPTURE  —  inasmuch  as  God 
says  expressly  of  Cyrus,  that  he  shall  rebuild  the  city,  Isa.  45:  1,  13  and 
44:  28,  comp.  2  Chron.  36:  23.  Ezra  1:  1—3.  In  these  two  last  cases, 
indeed,  the  temple  only  is  specified ;  which,  being  the  central  and  union- 
point  of  the  whole  enterprise  of  the  returning  immigrants,  is  very  natural. 
But  the  implication  of  city-building  at  the  same  time,  is  unavoidable  and 
plain.  The  history  of  the  restored  Israelites  in  Ezra  shows  beyond  a 
question,  that  so  early  as  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  (about  519 
B.  C.),  there  was  a  very  considerable  population  in  Jerusalem  —  not,  I 
trust,  without  houses  to  live  in.  (2)  There  is  no  authority,  and  no  good 
reason  for  amalgamating  the  seven  weeks  and  the  sixty-two  weeks. 
The  writer  has  separated  them,  or  at  any  rate  the  Masorites  have  se 
parated  them,  by  putting  an  Athnahh  on  ftsaio .  I  say  not  that  this  is  de- 


CHAP.  IX.  25. 

cisive  authority ;  but  I  may  say,  that  departure  from  the  accents  is  gene 
rally  undesirable,  and  mostly  hazardous.  A  really  good  reason  for  it 
must  be  one  which  is  of  an  imperious  nature.  (3)  The  nature  of  the  case 
separates  the  two  periods  in  question.  In  making  the  simple  sum  of 
sixty-nine,  (for  simple  it  is,  as  made  out  by  Hengstenberg),  who  would 
ever  think  of  dividing  this  period  into  two  parts,  one  of  which  has  no 
special  significance,  and  has  nothing  assigned  to  it  which  can  be  a  reason 
for  its  being  reckoned  by  itself?  According  to  this  method  of  interpreta 
tion,  the  terminus  a  quo  and  ad  quern  of  the  first  period  both  belong  to 
the  period  of  sixty-nine  weeks,  arid  not  to  that  of  the  seven  weeks. 
But  where  else,  in  all  the  Scriptures,  is  there  such  a  method  of  making 
out  a  simple  number  by  dividing  it  into  arbitrary  parts,  and  adding  these 
together?  (4)  V.  26  disproves  the  assertion,  that  the  speaker  meant  to 
reckon  in  the  manner  of  Hengstenberg.  What  says  he  concerning  the 
close  of  the  great  period  in  question  ?  "  After  sixty-two  weeks  an  anointed 
one  shall  be  cut  off,"  etc.  But  why  does  he  not  say  :  "  After  sixty-nine 
weeks  ?"  If  all  is  to  be  thrown  into  one  period,  this  would  be  inevitable, 
in  case  he  meant  to  be  rightly  understood.  That  he  does  not  say  sixty- 
nine,  shows  that  he  reckons  the  second  period  of  sixty-two  weeks  as  one 
in  arid  by  itself.  Besides,  if  Hengstenberg  reckons  rightly  as  to  the  sixty- 
nine  weeks,  even  they  do  not  reach,  by  his  own  concession,  to  the  cutting 
off' of  the  Messiah.  This  was  three  and  a  half  years  after  the  close  of  that 
period.  (5)  I  add,  in  order  to  complete  the  view  of  objections  to  his  in 
terpretation,  that  having  reached  the  middle  of  the  third  period,  (viz.  the 
one  week  =  seven  years),  the  other  remaining  three  and  a  half  years 
are  wholly  unmanageable.  With  him,  "  the  people  of  a  prince  that  will 
come,"  and  who  will  destroy  the  city  and  sanctuary,  are  the  Romans  un 
der  Titus.  Did  these  invaders  then  come  against  the  Jews,  within  three 
and  a  half  years  after  the  death  of  Christ?  No  ;  they  did  not  come 
within  a  third  of  a  century.  Moreover,  the  tyrant  or  desolator  who  comes, 
is  himself  to  be  wasted,  (be  a  c^b,  v.  27).  The  implication  is,  that  this 
will  take  place  at  the  end  of  the  latter  half  of  the  seven  years.  But 
Titus  did  not  die  within  that  period,  nor  until  A.  D.  81.  If  Vespasian 
be  selected  as  the  prince  in  question,  the  difference  will  be  only  about 
three  years.  Neither  of  them  died  a  violent  death.  The  "  outpouring 
of  what  is  decreed  upon  the  son  of  perdition"  (v.  27),  may  be  looked  for 
in  vain,  after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  within  the  limits  assigned  by  the 
angel. 

We  must  add  to  all  this,  that  the  fust  period  has  of  itself  neither  a  defi 
nite  beginning  nor  end,  according  to  Hengtenberg's  interpretation.  The 
third  is  also  destitute  (as  to  its  latter  half)  of  a  terminus  ad  quern.  He 


280  CHAP.  IX.  25. 

also  assigns  to  the  first  period,  what  belongs  to  the  second,  viz.  the  slow 
and  interrupted  rebuilding  of  the  city,  (which  can  be  done  only  by  offer 
ing  violence  to  the  grammatical  structure  of  the  language),  and  conse 
quently  he  leaves  the  second  long  period  of  62  weeks,  without  cognizing 
anything  that  is  accomplished  during  that  period  which  would  definitely 
mark  it.  Finally,  to  ground  all  this  theory  of  interpretation,  as  the  advo 
cates  of  it  do,  on  a  disputed  point  of  chronology,  (the  ten  years  to  be 
added  to  Artaxerxes  and  taken  from  Xerxes),  and  one  in  respect  to  which, 
after  the  remarks  by  Hoffman  (Die  70  Jahre,  s.  90  seq.),  we  may  ven 
ture  to  say  the  probability  is  strongly  against  them,  can  hardly  meet  the 
just  demands  of  criticism  in  a  case  of  such  a  nature,  or  satisfy  the  inquirer 
who  has  no  favorite  scheme  to  defend. 

After  all  this,  then,  we  are  compelled  again  to  ask,  with  still  more  em 
phasis  :  "  When  do  the  7  weeks  (and  of  course  the  70)  begin  ?  And 
when  do  they  end  ? 

Wieseler  has  dropped  the  7  weeks,  by  virtue  of  his  views  con 
cerning  TjFina ,  which  he  makes  to  mean  abbreviated,  abridged.  First 
the  original  70  years  of  Jeremiah  are  abridged  7  years,  in  the  execu 
tion  of  the  threatening.  Then,  to  correspond  with  this,  the  seven  weeks 
of  years  are  abridged  or  omitted  from  the  new  period  of  70  year-weeks. 
Why  ?  is  a  question  that  is  hardly  answered.  The  mere  exegete  might 
feel  himself  greatly  relieved,  if  he  could  dispose  of  this  difficulty  so  easily. 
But  for  myself,  I  am  more  inclined  to  confess  my  ignorance  than  to  get 
rid  of  the  matter  in  this  way.  Hoffman  (Weissag.  und  Erfi'ill.  s.  301 
seq.),  in  his  latest  view  of  this  subject,  says,  that  the  seven  weeks  can 
be  applied  to  no  period  preceding  the  vision  of  Daniel,  and  to  none  du 
ring  the  62  weeks,  or  during  the  one  week.  He  thinks  that  the  seven 
weeks,  in  which  Jerusalem  is  to  be  splendidly  rebuilt,  and  the  T'M  rp^E 
to  make  his  appearance,  must  come  after  both  these  periods.  But  when  ? 
How  ?  He  does  not  answer  these  questions,  but  cautiously  abstains  from 
giving  any  express  opinion.  I  consider  this,  in  both  Wieseler  and  him 
self,  as  only  a  kind  of  ingenious  way  of  confessing  that  they  do  not  un 
derstand  the  matter.  And  if  they  do  not,  it  is  somewhat  discouraging ; 
for  writers  of  more  acuteness  in  philology  do  not  often  make  their  ap 
pearance  ;  and  these  respective  discussions  of  theirs,  moreover,  are  the 
latest,  and  therefore  are  carried  on  under  peculiar  advantages. 

Only  one  case  more  occurs,  which  calls  for  examination,  viz.  such  an 
one  as  Hoffman  supposes  :  Can  we  reverse  the  order  of  the  periods,  and 
find  the  7  weeks  in  the  period  immediately  preceding  the  advent  of 
Christ?  They  would  then  close  by  the  appearance  of  a  Messiah) 
a  Prince  ;  and  so  far  all  is  well  as  to  the  end  of  the  period.  But  where 


CHAP.  IX.  25.  281 

is  the  terminus  a  quo?  The  49th  year  before  Christ,  or  any  year 
proximate  to  it,  is  distinguished  by  no  command  to  rebuild  Jerusalem  ; 
nor  indeed  was  there  occasion  for  any,  since  the  city  had  not  of  late 
been  laid  waste. 

I  do  not  see,  then,  but  that  we  must  suspend  our  investigations  here, 
as  connected  with  history ;  because  we  seem  to  have  exhausted  all  the 
probable  materials  which  history  presents.  We  must  betake  ourselves 
at  last,  then,  to  simple  philology.  Can  anything,  and  if  anything, 
then  how  much  can  be  gathered  from  it  ?  Possibly  a  strict  and  tho 
rough  investigation  of  the  words  may  throw  some  light  on  these  dark 
sentences. 

At  the  beginning  of  v.  25,  b^sbni  S'lni  denotes  that  something  special 
ly  worthy  of  attention,  is  about  to  be  said.  I  have  rendered  yini  by  mark 
well,  lit.  it  may  be  translated  :  and  thou  must  know  ;  but  the  Kal  Imperf. 
here  is  used  in  a  kind  of  Imper.  sense,  §  125.  3.  c.  ^sten1]  might  well 
be  rendered :  Pay  particular  attention.  It  also  means  to  understand,  as 
connected  with  such  an  act  of  the  mind.  The  sense  of  both  verbs  might 
be  thus  expressed  :  Be  thou  well  assured,  or  know  thou  for  certainty.  Why 
is  such  an  intimation  here  given  ?  Plainly  because  there  is  a  transition 
from  a  preceding  generic  to  a  specific  statement ;  and  not  merely  this, 
but  the  general  declaration  of  Messianic  blessings  that  had  just  been  made, 
is  now  to  be  followed  by  the  prediction  of  troublous  times  which  are  to 
precede  those  blessings.  The  change  is  so  great,  the  things  about  to  be 
said  are  of  a  tenor  so  different  from  those  which  had  been  said,  that  the 
speaker,  in  order  to  guard  against  surprise,  or  to  fortify  against  doubt, 
calls  the  earnest  and  particular  attention  of  Daniel  to  what  he  is  going 
to  disclose. 

la/i  x^ia  •)«  ,  as  to  the  form  of  expression,  reminds  us  of  "•Q'n  MS^  in 
v.  23.  But  in  vain  do  critics  seek  to  identify  the  first  with  the  second, 
as  to  meaning.  The  la'n  in  v.  23,  plainly  refers  to  the  communica 
tion  in  vs.  24 — 27.  That  in  the  verse  before  us  as  plainly  means  a 
command  or  message  to  rebuild  Jerusalem.  The  fact  that  the  "a1*  now 
before  us  has  no  article,  shows  conclusively,  that  it  does  not  renew  the 
mention  of  "Q'n  in  v.  23 ;  for  in  v.  23  itself,  when  na'n  is  there  repeated, 
it  has  the  article  ("Q'ns),  because  this  last  refers  to  the  previous  na'j . 
So  it  would  have  the  article  here,  in  case  a  like  reference  were  here  in 
tended.  For  the  same  reason,  *\tt  in  v.  25  cannot  refer  to  the  rnrn  "Q'n 
of  v.  2 ;  whither  so  many  critics  refer  it.  That  it  has  no  article,  is  a 
proof  that  it  has  no  antecedent  to  which  it  refers.  It  is  a  new  message  ; 
and  of  course  the  article  would  give  a  wrong  direction  to  the  mind  of  the 
reader.  The  allegation  made  by  several  critics,  that  the  negligence  of 

24* 


282  CHAP.  IX.  25. 

the  later  Hebrew  in  respect  to  the  article  stands  in  the  way  here  of  any 
argument  drawn  from  the  presence  or  absence  of  it,  may  be  credited  by 
those  who  have  some  favorite  views  to  be  supported  by  such  a  position, 
or  by  those  who  are  not  conversant  with  the  later  Hebrew  writings. 
Those  who  are  in  neither  of  these  predicaments,  will  be  slow  to  believe 
such  allegations  until  they  are  proved,  and  especially  in  a  case  so  plain 
as  the  present. 

But  from  whom  is  the  command  or  message  to  proceed  ?  No  one  is 
designated  in  the  context.  From  a  superior  a  command  (for  plainly  "in1-: 
is  of  such  a  nature  here)  must  proceed.  Is  it  some  king  ?  If  so,  we 
should  be  at  a  loss  to  say  what  king  is  meant.  He  is  not  the  ^3  ri^a 
for  certainty ;  because  the  latter  comes  into  view  only  at  the  close  of  the 
seven  weeks.  In  such  a  case,  then,  we  naturally  turn  to  God  as  the  au 
thor  of  the  command  ;  and  in  this  we  are  amply  confirmed  by  Isa.  44:  26, 
28,  lOto  ^™  ""ttaPl  E^^"1^  ^xb »  saying  to  Jerusalem,  Thou  shall  be 
built  up,  and  to  the  temple,  Thou  shaft  be  founded.  —  In  simply  desig 
nating  the  going  forth  of  a  command,  the  speaker  has  left  unexplained 
what,  the  nature  of  that  command  is.  The  sequel  is  designed  to  explain 
its  object.  It  is  to  rebuild  Jerusalem.  The  "a'n  or  command  then  is,  that 
something  should  be  done.  By  whom  ?  Of  course  by  those  who  have  an 
interest  in  Jerusalem,  i.  e.  by  the  Jews  ;  certainly  by  the  Jews,  provided 
the  rebuilding  is  to  precede  the  Christian  era. 

nisnb'i  spianb,  to  rebuild,  or  to  restore  and  to  build,  which  amounts 
here  to  the  same  thing.  The  verb  2*iia ,  followed  by  another  verb  either 
with  or  without  a  n  before  it,  may  everywhere  be  found  marking  sim 
ply  the  idea  of  repetition,  again.  Commonly  a  definite  mood  and  tense 
is  employed ;  but  I  can  see  no  reason  why  Infinitives  (as  in  the  present 
case)  may  not  be  employed  in  the  same  manner.  The  obvious  idea,  at 
all  events,  is  that  of 'rebuilding.  Whether,  however,  we  so  translate,  or  ren 
der  the  phrase  to  restore  and  build  up,  the  idea  is  for  substance  the  same. 
To  attach  to  :piyn  an  intensive  idea,  viz.  that  of  completely  restoring,  be 
longs  neither  to  the  verb,  the  Conj.  in  which  it  is,  or  the  nature  of  the 
case.  To  rebuild  a  city,  does  not  of  course  mean  to  build  it  as  largely 
or  as  well  as  it  was  before  built.  These  are  accidental  circumstances,  not 
essential  ones.  The  implication  in  either  way  of  translating  is,  that,  pre 
vious  to  the  command  in  question,  Jerusalem  has  been  laid  waste. 
Whether  utterly  or  partially,  is  not  necessarily  implied.  This  is  left  un 
determined. 

^PM  rpda  *iy ,  to  an  anointed  one,  a  prince  ;  not  to  an  anointed  prince, 
for  then  rpizJE  must  take  its  place  behind  "P53  ,  according  to  the  laws  of 
the  language.  In  its  present  position,  moreover,  standing  after  n? ,  it 


CHAP.  IX.  25.  283 

cannot  be  a  predicate,  for  this  it  could  be  only  in  case  1?  were  omitted, 
and  then  the  assertion  might  be :  Anointed  [is]  a  prince.  We  must 
therefore  put  the  word  in  apposition  with  *r  M  .  But  what  Messiah  is  it  ? 
If  it  be  the  expected  and  predicted  Messiah,  the  great  Deliverer,  then,  of 
course,  maa  being  an  appellative  must  have  the  article.  Hengstenberg 
says,  the  article  is  omitted  because  the  word  is  used  as  a  proper  name 
here.  But  if  it  be  a  proper  name,  then  of  course  "i^a  would  be  an  appel 
lative,  and  must  have  the  article ;  just  as  in  the  case  of  ^ban  *VK  . 
Besides,  although  so  common  as  a  proper  name  with  us,  and  also  in  the 
N.  Test.,  where  is  the  proof  from  the  O.  Test,  that  it  was  anciently  em-  ' 
ployed  in  this  way  ?  The  word  is  used  to  designate  the  high  priest,  Lev.  4: 
3,  5,  16  ;  often  for  a  lawfully  anointed  king,  1  Sam.  2:  10.  12:  3,  5.  16: 
6,  al.  saepe ;  it  is  used  to  designate  Cyrus  as  a  specially  chosen  and  con-  (/ 
secrated  instrument  of  liberating  the  Jews,  Isa.  45:  1;  and  sometimes  (in 
the  plural)  to  designate  patriarchs  or  nobles,  Ps.  105: 15.  1  Chron.  16:  22. 
Only  once  in  all  the  Heb.  Scriptures  is  it  applied  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
viz.  in  Ps.  2:  2,  if  we  except  the  present  case.  This  surely  does  not  look 
like  a  proper  name  in  ancient  times  ;  and  most  plainly  it  was  not  com 
monly  so  employed.  The  license  then  which  is  alleged,  respecting  the 
omission  of  the  article,  cannot  be  explained  or  vindicated  on  this  ground. 
If  the  Messiah  had  been  meant  in  the  case  before  us,  the  article  would 
seem  to  be  natural,  and  one  might  almost  say,  absolutely  indispensable. 
—  Can  it  mean,  then,  a  heathen  prince  ?  It  might,  because  it  is  applied  to 
Cyrus  in  Isa.  45:1.  Yet  evidently  it  is  so  applied  there,  only  because  he  was 
a  chosen  instrument  of  the  Lord,  to  accomplish  his  designs  in  respect  to 
the  Hebrews.  The  probability,  in  the  present  case,  is  strong  against  the 
idea  of  a  heathen  king,  since  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  which  would 
explain  the  application  of  r^iSE  to  such  an  one,  while  such  an  explana 
tion  is  palpable  in  the  case  of  Cyrus.  Naturally  it  would  of  itself  be  un 
derstood  as  implying  some  lawful  priest  or  prince  of  the  Jews  anointed  to 
priestly  or  to  regal  office,  or  to  both. 

^133  means  one  who  is  prominent,  preeminent,  conspicuous.  Hence  it 
becomes  an  appellative  for  prince.  The  office  implied  is  a  civil  one.  This 
I  suppose  to  be  the  reason  why  it  is  added  to  the  preceding  word. 
n^ETa  might  of  itself  mean  either  king  or  priest.  To  remove  all  doubt, 
1133  is  added  to  the  preceding  word,  and  put  in  apposition  as  explanatory, 
—  an  idiom  by  no  means  uncommon.  Of  course  the  article  should  not  be 
employed,  since  it  is  omitted  in  the  principal  or  leading  word.  The  true 
idea  then  seems  to  be  :  an  anointed  one  who  is  a  prince  or  civil  ruler. 
That  some  distinguished  personage  is  meant,  can  hardly  bs  questioned. 
Who  it  is,  or  when  he  was  to  appear,  are  questions,  as  we  have  seen, 
which  cannot  easily  be  solved  by  any  history  known  to  us. 


284  CHAP.  IX.  25. 


As  to  Signup  toWiti  ,  enough  has  already  been  said.  The  Athnahh 
on  the  last  word  seems  to  be  rightly  placed  there.  If  the  following  sixty- 
two  weeks  are  to  be  combined  in  one  period  with  these  seven,  then  v.  26 
could  not  say  :  After  those  sixty-two  weeks,  etc.,  but  mu$t  say  :  After  those 
sixty-nine  weeks  etc.  Besides,  there  is  no  example  in  the  Scriptures,  as 
has  already  been  remarked,  of  such  a  way  of  announcing  or  making  up 
numbers.  Moreover,  the  aMsin  that  follows  must  have  a  i  before  it,  in 
case  the  building  of  the  city  is  to  be  referred  back  to  the  seven  weeks, 
as  some  maintain,  or  even  in  case  they  are  to  be  included  in  the  sum  of 
the  building-period  as  announced  in  the  second  clause.  It  seems  quite 
clear,  moreover,  that  the  seven  weeks,  which  commence  with  a  command 
to  rebuild  and  end  with  a  distinguished  and  lawful  king,  imply  of  course 
a  prosperous  rebuilding,  which  is  consummated  by  the  coming  of  a  dis 
tinguished  lawful  sovereign.  In  contrast  with  this,  the  building  of  the  city 
during  the  sixty-two  weeks  is  to  be  scanty,  and  the  declaration  is  made  that 
it  will  be  carried  on  in  troublous  times.  Whether  the  seven  weeks  are  to 
be  arranged  before  or  after  the  sixty-two,  alters  not  the  nature  of  the 
present  case.  A  contrast  between  the  two  periods  is,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
plainly  designed  to  be  made.  The  seven  weeks  are  fausti  temporis,  the 
sixty-two  are  infausti  temporis.  The  seven  weeks  are  to  be  followed  by 
the  reign  of  a  ^raa  n^raa  ;  the  sixty-two  weeks  are  to  be  followed  by  the 
cutting  off  of  a  rpisa  ,  and  by  the  wasting  of  the  temple  and  city  during  the 
week  that  follows.  Presented  in  this  light,  the  contrast  between  the 
seven  and  the  sixty-two  weeks  becomes  quite  striking  and  palpable. 

What  then  do  we  gather,  at  last,  from  our  philological  inquiries  ?  We 
gather  at  least  some  things,  with  a  good  degree  of  conviction  ;  (1)  That 
the  periods  of  seven  and  sixty-two  are  not  only  diverse  -and  separate 
from  each  other,  but  are  actually  in  contrast  with  each  other,  in  regard  to 
events  respectively  belonging  to  them.  (2)  That  the  period  of  seven 
weeks  will  follow  some  waste  and  desolate  state  of  Jerusalem,  which 
Heaven  will,  at  the  beginning  of  those  weeks,  give  commandment  to  re 
pair  ;  and  this  reparation  will  be  followed  by  the  reign  of  a  lawful  and 
distinguished  sovereign,  i.  e.  this  period  will  end  in  prosperity,  under  an 
anointed  one,  a  prince.  (3)  The  terminus  a  quo  of  this  period  is  speci 
fied  not  by  the  designation  of  time  but  event,  and  this  event  (a  command 
to  rebuild)  is  different  from  anything  that  happened  before  the  return 
from  exile,  and  different  from  anything  predicted  by  Jeremiah  respecting 
the  end  of  the  exile.  Consequently  the  seven-weeks  period  does  not  com 
mence,  at  the  same  time  with  the  desolations  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchad 
nezzar.  (4)  Of  course,  I  do  not  see  how  the  conclusion  can  be  well 
avoided,  that  the  seven  weeks  are  to  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  seventy 


CHAP.  IX.  25.  285 

weeks  which  precede  the  Messianic  times.  I  cannot  accede  therefore  to 
the  remark,  that  seven  is  here  merely  a  mystical  number,  as  often  in  the 
Apocalypse,  and  that  it  may,  when  thus  understood,  be  regarded  as  desig 
nating  a  completion  or  fulness  of  time,  unlimited  by  specific  bounds ; 
moreover,  that  we  are  of  course  at  liberty  to  place  it  wherever  and 
whenever  events  will  correspond,  without  being  restrained  by  the  num 
ber  of  years.  Why  should  this  be  the  case  with  only  one  of  the  three 
periods  before  us  ?  The  other  two  are  clearly  specific  and  definite ;  and 
so  are  the  numbers  of  this  book  in  general.  What  authorizes  us,  then, 
to  make  the  present  case  an  exception  to  all  the  rest  ? 

"  But  we  can  find  nothing  in  history  that  accords  with  the  period  of 
seven  weeks ;  certainly  not  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  before  the  Chris 
tian  era." 

This  may  be  true.  Hoffman  (s.  301)  thinks  so  much  to  be  clear,  viz. 
that  *  the  seven  weeks  come  after  the  sixty-two  weeks  ;  and  that  the 
terminus  a  quo  of  the  seven  is  not  the  same  with  that  of  the  sixty-two, 
and  that  it  cannot  be  found  in  any  period  antecedent  to  the  time  of 
Daniel's  vision,'  (s.  299).  It  is  the  history  of  the  times,  as  he  thinks, 
which  forces  us  to  such  a  conclusion.  Unless  such  an  appeal  to  history 
can  be  made  with  much  force  and  propriety,  it  must  certainly  be  natural 
to  regard  the  three  periods  both  as  successive  and  continuous.  But  if  now 
we  appeal  to  actual  history,  as  it  lies  before  us,  this  seems  to  favor  the 
view  of  Hoffman ;  for  the  proclamation  of  Cyrus,  as  we  have  seen,  if 
taken  as  the  beginning  of  the  seven  weeks,  leads  to  no  ^55  rpi±3  at  the 
end,  except  either  to  Darius  the  Persian  king,  in  the  last  part  of  his  reign, 
or  to  Xerxes  in  the  beginning  of  his.  Neither  of  these  corresponds  to  such 
an  appellation.  Messiah  Prince  cannot  be  Ezra,  for  he  went  up  to  Jeru 
salem  some  seventy-nine  years  after  Cyrus'  proclamation,  instead  of  forty- 
nine  years  ;  it  cannot  be  Nehemiah,  for  he  went  up  ninety-one  years  after 
the  same.  Before  Cyrus'  time,  no  command  or  liberty  to  rebuild  was  given. 
Must  we  not  then  consider  ourselves  as  forced,  with  Hoffman,  to  the  con 
clusion  that  the  seven  weeks  must  come  after  the  other  periods  ?  But  if 
so,  then  we  must  ask :  How  ?  When  1  These  are  questions,  however,  that 
we  seem  not  to  have  the  means  of  answering  satisfactorily.  The  most 
promising  period  disclosed  by  history,  seems  to  be  that  between  the  time 
when  Judas  began  to  repair  the  desolations  made  by  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes,  and  the  reign  of  that  powerful  and  popular  king,  John  Hyrcanus, 
the  nephew  of  Judas.  The  forty-nine  years,  if  begun  with  the  repairs  by 
Judas,  would  fall  about  the  middle  of  Hyrcanus'  reign  ;  and  under  him,  the 
Jews  were  an  independent  and  respected  nation.  He  too  was  both  high- 
priest  and  king,  a  ^aa  n^aa .  But,  as  has  been  already  said,  the  year 


286  CHAP.  IX.  25. 

B.  C.  116,  (the  middle  of  his  reign),  has  nothing  particular  in  itself  to 
distinguish  it;  and  this  seems  to  make  the  application  of  the  seven  weeks 
to  this  period  somewhat  doubtful,  or  wholly  so.  Still  perhaps  it  is  not 
absolutely  decisive  against  it,  because  there  is  nothing  in  the  prediction, 
which  obliges  us  to  commence  the  reign  of  the  Anointed  one  and  Prince 
with  the  very  last  year  of  the  seven  weeks.  Would  it  not  be  suffi 
cient,  if  such  a  prince  were  already  on  the  throne  when  they  end  ? 

If  I  have  not  given  satisfaction  to  the  reader,  as  to  the  resolution  of  the 
difficulty  in  question,  (and  doubtless  I  have  not),  I  have  at  least  shown 
him  why  I  have  not  done  it.  I  do  not  despair,  after  all,  of  a  solution,  at 
some  future  period,  on  the  part  of  some  one,  who  has  better  vantage  ground 
than  we  now  have.  But  I  confess  myself  unable  to  answer  all  the  ques 
tions  that  may  be  here  raised.  This,  however,  only  proves  my  want  of 
adequate  knowledge,  and  not  that  the  subject  is  necessarily  inexplicable. 
But  of  this  matter  something  more  will  be  said  in  the  sequel. 

And  sixty  and  two  weeks  nr223!  a  son ,  shall  it  be  rebuilt.  The  subject 
is  the  city.  The  idiomatic  aiun  with  the  verb  that  follows,  is  the  same  as 
in  P.i'aab1]  a^anb  of  the  first  clause.  The  terminus  a  quo  of  the  sixty-two 
weeks,  (since  it  is  not  specifically  named),  has  been  supposed  by  some 
to  be  the  same  with  that  of  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah.  The  angel 
tells  Daniel,  that,  instead  of  seventy  years  simply,  70  weeks  of  years  are 
determined  on  or  decided  (T^tnns )  .  As  nothing  definite  is  expressly  said 
of  the  time  when  this  last  period  of  seventy  weeks  commences,  it  might 
seem  to  be,  as  some  have  maintained,  the  same  time  as  that  with  which 
the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah  began.  The  Ace.  of  time  here  (sixty-two 
weeks)  is  the  usual  Ace.  of  when  or  how  long,  §  116.  2.  It  does  not 
strictly  imply,  perhaps,  that  during  all  this  period  the  city  was  in  the 
regular  process  of  building.  It  may  be  sufficient,  that  during  the  period 
named  the  building  in  question  took  place.  Naturally,  however,  it  must 
be  understood  as  designating  a  protracted  season  of  building  up.  But  if 
we  begin  to  reckon  with  B.  C.  606,  (according  to  the  assumption  above), 
there  must  be  a  considerable  period  (seventy  years)  during  which  the 
city  was  still  in  a  state  of  entire  desolation,  viz.,  down  to  the  time  of  Cyrus, 
B.  C.  536.  From  the  time  of  Cyrus,  however,  down  to  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes,  it  was  in  a  state  of  gradual  although  sometimes  interrupted,  ad 
vance.  It  was  built  in  troublous  times.  Can  we  then,  in  view  of  all  this, 
and  after  the  preceding  discussions,  go  back  to  B.  C.  606  for  the  begin 
ning  of  the  second  period,  i.  e.  the  sixty-two  weeks  ? 

v^nni  Sim  ,  with  broad  spaces  and  narrow  limits.  I  take  these  much- 
contested  words  as  the  Ace.  adverbial,  designating  the  manner  in  which 
.the  city  will  be  built  in  the  times  of  trouble,  aim.  with  breadth,  i.  e.  with 


CHAP.  IX.  25.  287 

wide  spaces,  LXX.  «V  nldrog.  Street  the  word  often  means,  because 
street  is  a  wide  space.  Also  it  designates  larger  openings  in  cities,  like 
our  technical  word  place,  and  the  Latin  forum.  To  reverse  the  order  of 
the  words,  and  to  make  nirn  the  Nom.  to  the  verbs  would  be  a  degra 
dation  of  the  sense.  Besides,  where  in  the  Scriptures  do  we  find  the 
expression  build  applied  to  streets  ?  It  seems  quite  probable,  if  not  alto 
gether  certain,  that  airn  and  f'Hn  are  opposites,  and  make  a  contrast ; 
yet  one  which  is  very  descriptive.  The  first  shows  that  large  spaces  are 
left  within  the  city,  which  are  not  built  upon.  Then,  on  the  other  hand, 
•p"in  designates  that  which  is  limited,  narrowed,  clipped,  narrowly  de 
fined.  Such  were  the  houses  to  be  ;  at  least,  if  this  does  not  pertain  to 
the  form  of  the  houses  themselves,  (as  probably  it  does  not),  it  at  least 
applies  to  the  narrow  and  defined  limits  within  which  they  are  built.  In  a 
city  full  of  inhabitants,  small  spaces  are  left  and  ample  expansion  is  given 
to  the  mass  of  buildings.  But  here,  because  of  the  "troublous  times,"  the 
reverse  takes  place.  When  the  angel  wishes  to  tell  Zechariah  that  Jeru 
salem  shall  yet  be  overflowing  with  inhabitants,  he  says :  "  Because  of 
the  abounding  of  man  and  beast,  Jerusalem  shall  be  inhabited  nine  with 
[sub-urban]  villages.  The  opposite  to  such  an  idea  is  implied  by  v^nn. 
To  translate  this  word  ditch,  water-sluice,  conduit,  or  else  judgment,  de 
cision,  makes  no  tolerable  sense,  and  indeed  such  a  version  is  incapable 
of  philological  defence.  To  render  y^rn  it  is  decided  (Hav.,  Hengst., 
Wies.)  presents  two  difficulties ;  first  it  makes  a  divulsion  from  the  preced 
ing  word,  with  which  the  accents  connect  it ;  and  secondly  such  an  idea 
would  demand  «sin  f  nn  or  &on  fisnn  instead  of  "pnrp.  .  It  is  evident, 
on  the  whole,  that  the  word  is  one  part  of  an  antithetic  couplet,  of  which 
Sinn  is  the  other.  Of  the  translation  :  it  is  decided,  Hoffman  justly  says : 
"  It  is  opposed  to  all  sound  advance  of  expression  or  description."  It 
certainly  is  an  unlooked-for  declaration,  in  case  we  interpret  it  in  the 
manner  now  in  question,  i.  e.  such  as  to  break  the  thread  of  the  description. 
A  signal  good,  or  a  signal  evil,  might  readily  be  spoken  of  as  decreed;  but 
to  affirm  this  of  a  mere  subordinate  circumstance  in  the  building  of  the 
city,  and  interrupt  the  discourse  in  order  to  affirm  it,  seems  at  least  not 
to  be  very  probable. 

ftipiyn  pteai,  lit.  and  in  straitness  of  the  times,  in  our  English  version, 
even  in  troublous  times.  The  *i  prefix,  however,  need  not  be  rendered 
intensive  by  translating  it  even.  The  idea  is  somewhat  more  generic 
than  this  last  version  would  make  it,  inasmuch  as  the  latter  clause 
means,  that  the  times  in  general  of  the  rebuilding  will  be  times  of  hard 
ship  and  suffering.  That  they  were  so,  is  fully  evident  from  the  records 
of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  and  from  the  history  of  the  Maccabees ;  not  to 


288  CHAP.  IX.  26. 

speak  of  Josephus,  who  depends  almost  wholly  on  these  records.  That 
the  city  made  progress  slowly,  and  witli  not  a  few  interruptions,  from  the 
proclamation  of  Cyrus  until  the  reign  of  Antiochus,  is  sufficiently  appa 
rent  from  the  history  of  the  Jews  during  that  interval  of  time.  The  lan 
guage  of  prophecy  rarely  dwells  on  minute  particulars  of  history.  It  is 
enough,  in  the  present  case,  that  we  can  make  a  generic  application  of  it. 

(26)  And  after  sixty  and  two  weeks,  an  anointed  One  shall  be  cut  off,  and  there 
shall  be  none  for  it  [the  people],  and  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  shall  the  people  of  a 
prince  that  will  come  destroy;  but  his  end  shall  be  with  an  overwhelming  flood,  and 
unto  the  end  shall  be  war,  a  decreed  measure  of  desolations. 

Two  things  are  made  very  plain  by  the  first  part  of  this  verse,  viz. 
first,  that  the  period  of  sixty-two  weeks  stands  by  itself,  separated,  in  the 
view  of  the  writer,  from  the  preceding  period  of  seven  weeks.     Other 
wise  it  would  be  unavoidable  that  he  should  either  say :  After  sixty-nine 
weeks,  or  else :  After  seven  weeks  and  sixty-two  weeks.     This  circum 
stance  seems  to  be  too  decisive  to  allow  us  to  amalgamate,  as  many  have 
done,  the  first  and  second  periods  into  one,  as  to  the  terminus  a  quo  and 
ad  quern.     Secondly,  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  temple  by  the  people 
of  a  prince  that  would  come,  i.  e.  invade  the  holy  land,  shows  that  the 
issue  of  "  troublous  times"  is  into  those  far  more  troublous,  and  which  are 
the  consummation  of  all  that  is  threatened  against  the  Jews.    In  8:  23 
we  have  the  like  representation;  (1)  It  is  rvnn&ta,  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  fourth  dominion,  (=the  latter  part  of  the  sixty -two  weeks),  and 
QiSttisn  nriii3 ,  when  transgressors  have  come  to  the  full,  i.  e.  filled  up  the 
measure  of  their  sins,  that  the  destroyer  and  revenger  comes  in.     (2) 
There,  as  here,  the  destroyer,  when  he  has  finished  his  work  of  desola 
tion  in  the  holy  land,  comes  to  a  fearful  and  sudden  end.     In  8:  25,  this 
is  expressed  by  "Qtth  "^  02x2 ,  here  by  C]Z3isa .     The  contrast  between 
this  and  the  end  of  the  seven  weeks,  can  hardly  fail  to  strike  the  mind  of 
an  impartial  interpreter.     The  seven  weeks  end  in  an  anointed  one  who 
is  also  a  Prince,  i.  e.  a  legitimate  high  priest  and  king,  uniting  in  himself 
a  double  office,  and  reigning  over  a  city  rebuilt  or  repaired  by  the  com 
mand  of  heaven,  and  made  prosperous ;  the  sixty-two  weeks  end  in  the 
destruction  of  a  city  and  sanctuary,  which  had  been  but  scantily  built,  and 
in  seasons  of  pressure  and  calamity.     A  seven  years  of  wasting  and  per 
secution  is  their  immediate  sequel.     Whoever  looks  on  the  representa 
tion  in  this  light,  must  of  necessity  concede,  that  the  periods  of  seven  and 
sixty-two  are  set  in  real  contrast  to  each  other,  as  has  been  intimated, 
and  are  by  no  means  to  be  amalgamated,  or  either  of  them  virtually  re 
moved  out  of  sight.     Both  periods  are  equally  real,  at  least  they  are  so 


CHAP.  IX.  26.  289 

in  the  view  of  the  writer ;  and  we  cannot  properly  dispose  of  either  with 
out  making  it  significant. 

n*'^"3  rvns"1 ,  an  anointed  one  shall  be  cut  off.  Not  THE  Messiah  or  THE 
anointed  one,  for  there  is  no  article  here,  as  there  must  be  if  such  were 
the  meaning.  As  we  have  seen,  rpdft  was  not  &  proper  name  in  ancient 
times ;  and  as  an  appellative,  it  should  of  course  take  the  article.  But 
this  being  omitted,  we  are  admonished  to  look  in  another  direction  for 
the  meaning  of  the  word  n^i2« .  Priest  or  king  we  have  seen  that  it 
may  mean,  (see  on  v.  25,  -PM  rn^  ),  because  both  of  these,  when  duly 
appointed,  were  anointed  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  An  anointed 
one,  therefore,  is  the  appellation  of  all  who  are  thus  consecrated  to  high 
office.  Nor  can  the  term  be  applied  to  any  mere  king  solely  because  he 
is  king ;  and  specially  is  it  inapplicable  to  any  heathen  king,  unless  in 
deed,  like  Cyrus,  such  an  one  be  chosen  on  the  part  of  heaven  for  spe 
cific  and  important  purposes.  But  as  the  Scriptures  apply  it  to  an  anointed 
priest  or  king  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  so  we  may  here  apply  it  to 
either,  just  as  the  context  demands.  It  is  not  the  same  personage  as  the 
1153  HIEJB  of  v.  25,  for  if  it  were,  the  article  would  be  demanded.  Be 
sides  the  omission  of  this,  it  is  quite  evident  that  the  condition  and  cir 
cumstances  of  the  two,  are  very  diverse ;  the  "PS3  n^da  apparently  reigns 
in  prosperity,  while  the  H^tSB  of  our  text  is  to  be  cut  off  and  destroyed. 
Not  that  the  word  n'nS']  always  and  necessarily  designates  a  violent  death, 
or  the  death  of  a  criminal,  as  some  allege ;  for  sometimes  the  word 
means  to  fail  or  lack  ;  e.  g.  Josh.  9:  23,  las  rH3^  Kb ,  a  servant  shatt 
never  fail  or  be  lacking.  But  in  the  passage  before  us  it  seems  most 
probable,  that  the  usual  sense  of  the  word  is  retained.  We  shall  see,  in  / 
the  historical  illustration,  that  such  is  the  case.  The  n^iSJE  I  must  there 
fore  regard  as  the  Lord's  anointed  high-priest,  Onias  III.,  conspicuous 
for  his  piety  and  his  steadfastness,  who  was  displaced  from  office  by  An- 
tiochus,  and  his  heathenish  brother  put  in  possession  of  his  place.  Soon 
after  Onias  was  obliged  to  flee  to  Daphnae,  near  Antioch,  for  a  refuge 
from  the  malice  of  his  Jewish  enemies  ;  thence  he  was  drawn  by  false 
promises,  and  murdered  by  the  governor  of  Antioch,  vicegerent  of  Anti- 
ochus.  His  son,  instead  of  succeeding  his  father  Onias,  was  obliged  to 
fly  to  foreign  lands,  and  finally  built  up  Leontopolis  in  Egypt.  But 
during  the  rest  of  Antiochus'  reign,  no  lawful  high  priest  had  possession 
of  the  appropriate  office.  The  people  were  forced  to  accept  of  heathen 
ish  Jews  as  their  high  priests ;  so  that  what  is  said  in  the  sequel,  although 
dark  at  first,  and  not  a  little  embarrassed  with  the  glosses  put  upon  it 
both  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times,  becomes  intelligible  when  rightly  ^ 
interpreted. 


290  CHAP.  IX.  26. 

ib  •j'W ,  our  Eng.  version  renders  but  not  for  himself,  evidently  build 
ing  on  the  assumption,  that  the  Messiah  here  means  Jesus  Christ,  and  so 
expressing  the  idea  that  he  died  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  and  not  upon 
his  own  account,  i.  e.  not  because  of  anything  which  he  had  done.  So  also 
Vitringa,  Havernick,  Rosenmuller.  But  the  Heb.  idiom  forbids  this  in 
terpretation.  Were  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  passage  that  which  our 
version  gives,  it  must  run  thus:  "ib  5<bl.  The  word  "px  is  by  no  means 
a  simple  particle,  expressing  merely  negation  like  xb ,  but  a  verb  mean- 
ing  is  not.  Like  all  verbs  it  demands  a  subject,  expressed  or  implied. 
When  expressed,  it  takes  the  subject,  if  a  pronoun,  as  a  suffix,  and  adapts 
its  form  accordingly ;  if  other  words  are  subjects,  they  are  put  in  the 
Gen.  after  the  negative  verb,  which  then  assumes,  as  in  our  text,  the  con 
struct  form,  "px  then  must  have  a  subject.  Its  very  form  (const.)  is 
designed  to  show  that  one  is  implied.  What  then  is  it  ?  Whence  are 
we  to  supply  it  ?  From  the  context,  all  must  concede.  If  this  be  ad- 
mitted,  then  those  interpretations,  which  take  "px  in  the  same  sense  as  if 
it  were  xb ,  of  course  will  not  abide  the  test.  So  C.  B.  Michaelis  :  And 
not  to  be  will  be  his  lot;  Sept.  in  Cod.  Chis.,  xal  ovx  sarai.  But  this  in 
Hebrew  would  be  SISJPX  .  Others  again  translate  thus :  And  nothing  will 
belong  to  him.  But  px  does  not  mean  nothing,  but  it  means  is  not,  i.  e. 
something  either  expressed  or  implied  is  not.  Others  again  thus  :  And 
no  one  remained  to  him,  (Sack,  Hitzig)  ;  which  has  to  meet  the  same 
difficulty,  for  "px  is  not  no  one,  but  simply  is  not.  Rosch  (Stud,  und 
Krit.  1834)  gives  the  phrase  this  turn:  And  no  one  was  present  for  him. 
In  this  way  he  applies  it  to  designate  the  death  of  Seleucus  IV.  Philo- 
pator,  at  a  time  when  neither  his  son  Demetrius,  nor  his  brother  Anti- 
ochus,  was  near  him.  But  "px  does  not  mean  is  not  present,  but  is  not. 
Besides,  if  it  did,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  one  not  present  is  limited  to 
son  or  brother,  but  one  extends  to  any  or  all  that  belong  in  any  way  to 
the  nn^ .  Beyond  all  this,  a  mere  heathen  king,  like  Seleucus,  would 
not  be  called  by  such  a  name  as  Messiah.  —  More  improbable  still  is  the 
turn  given  by  the  Vulgate,  Jahn,  and  Scholl :  Non  erit  ejus  populus,  sc. 
qui  eum  negatarus  est.  But  whence  comes  people  in  this  case  ?  And  if 
we  might  supply  to ,  *px  cannot  well  mean,  that  the  Jewish  nation 
should  be  cut  off";  it  merely  denies  their  existence.  —  Hengstenberg, 
who  has  finely  illustrated  'px  (Christol.  II.  s.  474 — 478),  and  shown  the 
necessity  of  an  implied  subject,  has  not  succeeded  equally  well  in  making 
out  that  subject.  He  says,  the  denial  in  "px  must  refer  to  what  belonged 
to  the  rpdtt ;  and  this  he  thinks  appropriately  to  be  Herrschaft,  i.  e.  do 
minion.  Of  course  he  regards  the  rniua  here  as  the  suffering  Saviour. 
But  how  was  his  dominion  lost,  by  his  being  cut  off?  Temporal  domin- 


CHAP.  IX.  26.  291 

ion  he  never  sought  or  claimed ;  but  spiritual  he  acquired  by  the  very 
act  of  enduring  readily  his  sufferings,  Phil.  2:  8,  9. 

Passing  by,  then,  all  these  various  methods  of  interpretation,  let  us 
still  further  urge  the  question  :  What  is  to  be  supplied  as  a  subject  for  the 
verb,  from  the  context  ?  I  know  of  no  other  answer  that  can  be  made 
to  this,  on  a  ground  strictly  grammatical,  but  that  rpEE  must  be  regarded 
as  the  proper  word.  Altogether  of  a  tenor  like  to  the  passage  before  us, 
is  Ex.  22:  2,  "iraMa  IS-?1!  i>  "px  ex  Db'J1?  D|*?>  *•  e-  he  shall  surely  replace 
it ;  if  he  has  not,  then  he  shatt  be  sold  on  account  of  his  theft"  Here  dbr  , 
or  its  kindred  noun  D&SJ ,  is  plainly  to  be  supplied  after  -px .  The  same 
as  to  rnd'a,  in  the  case  before  us.  It  is  forced,  upon  us  by  the  grammar 
of  the  language.  But  if  this  be  admitted,  (and  I  see  no  way  to  avoid  it), 
then  of  course  we  must  give  to  1'b  a  different  meaning  from  that  com 
monly  given,  and  refer  it  to  the  D>  of  v.  24.  For  to  say  that  an  anointed 
one  shall  be  cut  off,  and  then  to  say  that  there  is  no  anointed  one  to  him 
after  such  an  event,  would  be  unmeaning  if  not  frivolous.  To  say,  that 
when  Onias  the  anointed  high  priest  shall  be  cut  off,  there  will  be  no 
authorized  and  proper  rpd'a  to  the  people  of  the  Jews,  is  pregnant  with 
meaning,  and  accords  with  historical  fact.  If  any  one  takes  exception 
to  the  distance  of  the  antecedent  from  "ft ,  it  would  be  easy  to  point  him 
to  similar  and  even  stronger  cases  of  such  a  nature ;  e.  g.  Isa.  8:  21,  H2 ; 
and  the  same  in  Ps.  68:  11,  15.  So  1'rniO^  in  Ps.  87:  1,  and  not  a  few 
other  cases  of  a  like  nature.  I  concede  that  we  are  not  to  refer  a  pro 
noun  very  far  either  backwards  or  forwards,  except  when  necessity  calls. 
But  here  seems  to  be  such  a  necessity ;  for  no  consistent  grammatical 
sense  can  be  made  out  in  any  other  way,  and  this  makes  one  quite  appo 
site  and  facile.  Steudel  (Pfingst-programm.  1833,  s.  36  seq.)  was  the 
first,  so  far  as  I  know,  who  advanced  the  position  that  "ib  refers  to  ?{Br  in 
v.  24.  Hoffman  (in  his  Die  70  Jahre,  s.  72)  pronounces  against  it,  but 
after  all  he  virtually  adopts  it,  in  his  later  work,  Weissag.  und  Erfull.  s. 
303.  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  difficulties  of  the  passage 
are  greatly  diminished  by  this  interpretation.  I  must  add,  in  order  to 
prevent  misunderstanding,  that  I  regard  rrd^  as  more  indicative  of  the 
high  priest's  official  dignity  and  circle  of  duty,  than  merely  of  his  person. 
When  he  is  cut  off,  the  people  fail  of  having  one  lawfully  to  fill  his 
place.  But  that  the  passage  cannot  well  apply  to  Jesus  the  Messiah, 
seems  plain  from  the  fact,  that  his  death  introduced  him  to  an  eternal 
high  priesthood,  instead  of  cutting  him  off  from  such  an  office. 

And  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  will  ihe  people  of  the  prince  who  is  to 
come  destroy.  —  n^nd?  does  not  necessarily  mean  a  total  destruction,  but 
such  a  wasting  as  mars  the  object  concerned,  and  renders  it  compara- 


292  CHAP.  IX.  26. 

tively  useless  or  worthless.  The  article  before  city  and  sanctuary,  points 
to  these  words  in  v.  24.  1^3  05  omits  the  article  before  the  second 
noun,  because  this  T^3  is  different  from  that  in  v.  25,  and  the  article 
would  give  a  wrong  sense;  or  at  least  the  insertion  of  it  would  make  it 
dubious  to  the  reader,  inasmuch  as  it  would  naturally  refer  him  to  the 
•naa  in  v.  25.  The  T}3  here  is  merely  a  heathen  prince  acting  in  a  civil 
capacity,  in  distinction  from  a  rp^£  who  belongs  to  the  people  of  God.  — 
X3n  is  not  a  verb  but  a  participle.  The  article  makes  it  distinctive,  lit. 
of  the  comer,  or  of  him  who  cometh  or  will  come  ;  or  the  word  may  be 
understood  of  coming  in  a  hostile  sense,  i.  e.  invading,  as  in  Dan.  1:  2. 
Jer.  36:  29.  It  seems  to  .point  to  a  well  known  personage,  who  is  to  be 
the  leader  of  the  destroyers,  viz.  of  the  DS>  before  mentioned.  In  8:  25 
the  same  personage  is  fully  and  plainly  described,  and  in  a  way  much 
like  to  that  in  vs.  26,  27,  of  the  present  passage.  N2H ,  then,  virtually 
appeals  to  the  knowledge  of  the  reader,  who  has  perused  the  prophecy 
in  chap.  viii. 

ispi.,  and  his  end  ;  whose  ?  The  obvious  grammatical  answer  is,  the 
end  of  the  xsn  1^5 .  One  need  but  compare  8:  25,  respecting  Anti- 
ochus :  He  shall  be  broken  in  pieces  without  [human]  hand,  and  to  join 
with  this  11:  45,  And  he  shall  come  to  his  end  (I'sip  ir),  and  none  shall 
help  him  (N,b  it  is  "pso),  in  order  to  see  how  exactly  all  three  of  the  pas 
sages  agree.  In  all,  the  end  in  question  follows  the  injuries  done  to  the 
holy  city  and  temple.  Manifestly  the  same  personage  is  concerned. 
We  cannot,  therefore,  refer  iszp  to  city  and  sanctuary  (Hav.),  for  the 
suff.  should  then  be  plural;  nor  to  rvnd?,  i.  e.  the  action  of  destroying 
which  ends  in  an  overwhelming,  (Hengst.).  Indeed  such  an  application 
would  probably  never  have  been  thought  of,  had  not  that  interpretation 
needed  its  aid,  which  makes  Titus  the  Roman  chief  to  be  the  Ti3  in 
this  case,  who  is  to  destroy  city  and  sanctuary  S]aisa .  But  such  a  con- 
struction  is  incompatible  with  grammar,  and  equally  so  with  the  parallel 
passages  to  which  reference  has  been  made  above. 

r^TSJa,  lit.  with  an  inundation  or  overwhelming  flood.  But  the  literal 
sense  is  here  out  of  question  ;  and  the  figurative  one  of  course  is,  that  of 
being  swept  away  by  a  resistless  torrent  of  evils  or  calamities.  The 
simple  image  of  merely  a  vast  or  numerous  army  of  men  cannot  be  vin 
dicated  as  an  appropriate  significancy  of  this  word,  which  in  its  tropical 
meaning  must  indicate  overwhelming  evil.  One  needs  but  to  compare 
8:  25  and  11:  45,  in  order  to  see  how  entirely  in  accordance  with  each 
other  these  three  passages  are,  respecting  the  sudden  death  of  the  tyrant 
and  persecutor.  The  article  in  SEisa  may  be  explained  in  two  ways ; 
first  as  standing  before  a  noun  used  here  in  an  abstract  sense,  §  107.  3. 


CHAP.  IX.  26.  293 

Note  1.  c ;  or  secondly,  on  the  ground  of  a  destruction  already  predicted, 
and  regarded  as  known  or  understood,  comp.  7:  26  and  8:  25.  In  brief 
thus :  '  The  city  and  sanctuary  shall  .be  marred  by  the  subjects  of  a 
prince  whose  coming  you  know,  and  of  whose  fearful  end  you  are  also 
cognizant.' 

lai  ntnbE  y\3  ^?1>  ana  unto  the  end  s^a^  be  war,  a  decreed  measure  of 
desolation.  A  much,  contested  passage,  about  which  a  great  variety  of 
opinions  exist.  Hoffman  (Weissag.  etc.  s.  305)  thinks,  that  n^nbs  y$ 
here  means  the  end  of  a  ivar,  viz.  of  a  war  that  will  arise  against  Anti- 
ochus  in  consequence  of  his  persecution  and  oppression.  But  against 
this  lies  the  objection,  that  the  idea  of  another  war,  different  from  that 
which  is  implied  in  the  preceding  context  that  speaks  of  the  marring  of 
the  city  and  sanctuary,  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  be  distinctly  in  the 
mind  of  the  reader  here.  In  fact,  if  the  idea  was  designed  to  be  so  spe 
cific  as  that  which  the  context  would  naturally  suggest,  the  article  would 
be  necessary  before  Franba  •  The  fact  that  this  word  has  no  article, 
shows  that  it  is  not  intended  merely  to  reproduce  the  idea  that  lies  con 
cealed  in  the  preceding  clause,  viz.  that  of  a  state  of  mutual  hostility  and 
contest.  War  in  its  more  general  sense,  viz.  a  continued  state  of  contest 
and  desolation,  following  on  after  the  marring  of  city  and  sanctuary,  is 
plainly  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  text.  Had  the  author  written  hor&Ssn , 
the  reader  would  spontaneously  refer  it  to  what  is  implied  in  the  preced 
ing  clause.  To  prevent  this,  as  well  as  to  give  the  idea  a  more  generic 
shape,  the  article  is  omitted.  —  As  to  jf£ ,  is  it  in  the  const,  state  before 
rrar&E  (as  the  conjunctive  accent  [  j  ]  would  seem  to  imply),  or  is  there 
a  pause  here  that  would  naturally  require  a  lesser  distinctive  accent  ? 
The  translation  above  is  founded  on  the  latter  assumption ;  which,  of 
late,  is  the  more  general  one.  The  train  of  accents  which  ends  in  Za- 
keph  Qaton  (as  here),  has  a  great  variety  of  changes,  dependent  on  the 
fact  whether  the  clause  consists  of  two,  three,  or  four  words,  and  more 
dependent  on  this  than  on  the  sense  or  real  connection  of  the  words ;  as 
any  one  may  see  in  Nordheimer's  Heb.  Gramm.  II.  p.  337.  In  fact,  it 
is  palpably  before  him  in  the  present  case ;  for  y^m  has  a  Munahh,  while 
the  particle  before  it  (is)  has  a  distinctive  accent  (named  a  prince),  viz. 
a  Pashta.  Will  it  be  pretended  that  y£  has  a  nearer  relation  to  nrrtbr , 
than  is  has  to  fg  ?  I  grant  that  the  consecution  of  accents  shows  that 
the  Accentuators  probably  regarded  y$  as  being  in  the  const,  state. 
But  an  end  of  a  war  is  too  loose  an  expression,  in  this  connection,  to  ad 
mit  of  any  good  defence.  If,  however,  we  translate  unto  the  end  or  an 
end  shall  be  war,  and  thus  separate  y$  from  a  const,  state,  then  why  has 
it  not  the  article  ?  We  should  perhaps  expect  yg>ft ,  the  end,  viz.  one 

25* 


294  CHAP.  IX.  26. 

which  the  reader  had  already  been  taught  to  anticipate,  see  8:  17.  But 
if  the  writer  had  inserted  the  article  here,  he  would  have  cast  the  mind 
of  the  reader  back  upon  the  precedihg  i'ap  as  the  antecedent.  The  fact 
that  he  has  omitted  both  article  and  pronoun  suff.  in  y£ ,  makes  it  plain  that 
he  means  another  yg ,  viz.  one  of  time,  and  not  merely  of  calamity  or 
catastrophe.  There  is  another  ground,  also,  of  the  omission  in  this  case, 
one  founded  in  the  peculiar  usage  of  the  author,  which  I  have  not  seen 
noticed.  This  is,  that  he  elsewhere  speaks  of  the  same  period  in  the 
same  same  way,  viz.  by  omitting  the  article.  So  in  8:  19,  where  it  is 
said  :  An  end  (]/£)  will  be  at  an  appointed  time  ("isi'ab).  Observe  that 
the  writer  does  not  say  israb ,  at  THE  appointed  time,  which  would  pre 
suppose  a  knowledge  of  this  period  on  the  part  of  the  reader,  but  AN 
appointed  time,  viz.  a  time  which  Heaven  has  fixed.  Nor  does  he  say 
fgn  in  8:  19,  because  he  does  not  take  it  for  granted  that  the  reader 
has  a  limitation  of  the  period  in  his  mind.  So  in  8:  17,  where  phTnsb 
has  plainly  the  generic  idea  of  a  period  which  has  its  limits,  i.  e.  which 
is  fixed  by  an  overruling  Providence.  Exactly  so  in  11:  35,  "jrp  ns  is, 
where  it  is  again  said,  that  this  end  will  be  isiab .  Here  observe  the 
article  in  the  latter  word,  in  reference  to  8: 19.  Again  in  12:  4,  yp  ns>  15, 
as  much  as  to  say:  a  period  of  consummation.  The  same  in  12:  9. 
Now  in  some  of  these  cases,  (indeed  in  all  excepting  the  first  mention  of 
y£),  we  might  expect  to  find  the  article  ;  but  plainly  it  is  the  writer's 
design  to  communicate,  by  this  phraseology,  only  the  generic  idea  of  a 
period  of  consummation.  For  this  the  article  would  be  inappropriate, 
in  any  of  the  cases  here  presented.  The  sum  of  all  is,  that  the  idea 
here  intended  to  be  communicated  is  this,  viz.  that  unto  an  appointed 
time  or  limited  period,  (limited  by  heaven),  there  will  be  war,  viz.  be 
tween  the  tyrant  and  the  Jews.  The  next  clause  makes  this  general 
idea  more  specific,  viz.  that  the  desolations  which  this  will  occasion  have 
their  fixed  boundaries  beyond  which  they  cannot  pass. 

m'^iii  Fianni  >  «  decreed  limit  of  desolations.  The  part,  PS^ng  is  of 
the  fern,  and  usual  const,  form,  Niph.  of  yyn .  It  is  here  used  substan- 
tively,  the  fern,  making  as  usual  the  abstract  noun.  In  this  way  it 
parallelizes  in  some  measure  with  f£ ,  which  means  limit  in  respect  to 
time,  while  risprja  designates  an  abridged  or  strictly  limited  measure  as  to 
quantity  or  degree.  In  other  words,  the  evils  of  the  contest  have  an 
appointed  end  and  a  decreed  or  limited  measure.  The  ideas  stand  so 
closely  connected  together  here,  that  a  "j  between  the  clauses  would  in 
jure  the  strength  of  the  expression.  rria'atD  is  itself  a  fern.  part,  noun, 
taken  in  the  abstract  sense.  The  sense  is  not  a  desolating  decree,  for 


CHAP.  IX.  27.  295 

^iD  has  a  passive  sense,  but  a  determined  measure  of  desolations  to  be 
suffered  ;  or,  to  render  literally,  a  determined  thing  is  desolations. 

The  next  verse  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  more  explicit  unfold 
ing  of  the  character  and  doings  of  the  desolator,  i.  e.  of  the  xsn  '•PJM  and 
of  his  yp  .  He  will  form  a  close  alliance  with  many  Jews  ;  he  will  make 
sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease  ;  he  will  plant  the  ensigns  of  heathen 
abominations  in  the  temple,  and  render  it  desolate  in  respect  to  its  ap 
propriate  rites  employed  in  the  worship  of  the  true  God  ;  and  unto  his 
extinction  shall  an  overwhelming  flood  be  poured  upon  him  who  deserves 
to  be  destroyed.  In  other  words,  the  waster  shall  himself  be  a  daittS  , 
i.  e.  something  wasted  or  a  waste. 

(27)  And  he  shall  firmly  covenant  with  many,  for  one  week  ;  and  during  half  of 
the  week,  shall  he  cause  the  sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease  ;  and  a  waster  shall  be 
over  a  winged-fowl  of  abominations  ;  but  unto  destruction,  even  that  which  is  decreed, 
shall  there  be  an  outpouring  upon  him  who  is  to  be  destroyed. 


aJiiril  ,  he  shall  firmly  covenant,  or  lit.  he  shall  make  firm  or  strong 
a  covenant.  The  phrase  can  fairly  mean  nothing  but  this.  The  Nom.  to 
the  verb  is  the  X2h  T^3  or  desolating  invader.  The  context  supplies  no 
other  ;  and  the  sense  fairly  admits  of  no  other.  The  explanation  is  found 
in  1  Mace.  1:  11  seq.,  "In  those  days  there  went  forth  from  Israel  trans 
gressors  [vioi  TtaQavofioij  d^SiiJsrj  8:  23],  and  persuaded  many  [Jews], 
saying:  Let  m  go  and  make  a  covenant  with  the  Gentiles  round  about  us  ... 
And  their  speech  was  pleasing  in  their  eyes,  and  certain  persons  from  the 
people  went  unto  the  king,  and  he  gave  them  power  to  carry  into  execu 
tion  the  ordinances  of  the  Gentiles,  etc."  The  sequel  shows  how  the  Gen 
tile  customs  were  introduced  by  them  into  Jerusalem.  In  1  Mace.  1:  41  seq. 
is  a  full  account  of  the  abominations  practised  by  Antiochus  in  Jerusalem. 
Further  explanation  is  unnecessary.  —  dwb  has  the  article,  because  it 
designates  a  whole  class  here  ;  just  as  we  have,  in  8:  23,  d^ir&fi  in  the 
same  way,  and  to  designate  the  same  class.  The  additional  idea  here 
communicated  is,  that  many  took  such  a  course.  The  b  in  this  case,  re 
sembles  the  usual  construction  of  n^a  r^S  ,  which  puts  b  after  it  and 
before  the  persons  with  whom  the  covenant  is  made,  when  they  are  the 
inferior  party  ;  e.  g.  2  K.  11:  4.  2  Sam.  5:  3.  2  Chron.  21:  7.  Isa.  55:  3. 
61:  8.  Jer.  32:  40,  al.  When  equals.make  a  covenant  d3?  with  or  -nx  with 
is  employed.  In  the  present  case,  Antiochus  dictated  the  firm  league 
between  himself  and  the  Jewish  apostates  ;  so  we  have  d^snb  .  The  He 
brew.  by  the  way,  here  exhibits  a  nicety  of  meaning  and  construction 
which  our  language  cannot  reach. 

one  week,  i.  e.  seven  years,  is  the  Ace.  of  time,  during  which 


296  CHAP.  IX.  27. 

this  matter  is  to  continue.  Antiochus  began  to  meddle  with  the  affairs  of 
the  Jews,  in  B.  C.  171,  and  during  that  year  deposed  Onias,  and  cove 
nanted  with  his  heathenized  and  apostate  brother,  Jesus  or  Jason,  to  make 
him  high  priest,  with  the  condition  that  he  should  introduce  heathen 
usages  into  Jerusalem.  In  the  latter  end  of  B.C.I  65,  or  at  the  commence 
ment  of  B.  C.  164,  Antiochus  died.  The  persecution  and  oppression 
went  on,  in  some  form  or  other,  during  all  that  period  of  seven  years, 
i.  e.  from  171  to  164.  Hengst.,  Hav.,  and  some  others,  make  ssrna  the 
Nom.  to  "naaii ,  viz.  one  week  shall  confirm  a  covenant,  etc.  But  why  seven 
years  ?  They  admit  that  the  ministry  of  Christ  lasted  only  some  three 
or  three  and  a  half  years;  what  then  constitutes  the  limits  of  the  seven? 
Besides,  the  violence  done  to  the  language  in  this  case  is  forbidding. 
Not  to  time,  but  to  events  that  occurred  during  it,  is  the  strengthening  or 
nullifying  of  a  covenant  to  be  attributed.  Comp.  8: 14,  for  a  period 
nearly  the  same  as  the  seven  years,  and  designed  to  be  somewhat  more 
specific. 

ysaisrt  isrn ,  and  during  half  of  the  week,  Ace.  of  time  how  long,  again. 
"i^n  does  not  mean,  as  many  have  interpreted  it,  a  precise  point  of  time, 
just  where  half  of  the  length  of  the  whole  would  reach,  but  one  half 
or  one  division  of  the  whole  duration.  So  is  it  clearly  to  be  taken  in  12:  7  ; 
and  so  here,  because  it  can  never  be  made  to  mean  the  same  as  hsh3  or 
i^nb ,  which  would  designate  merely  the  half-way  point  of  time.  Then 
again,  the  5*aisn  ,  with  its  article,  points  to  the  preceding  week  or  seven 
years,  and  shows  us,  that  as  this  marks  length  of  time,  so  the  half  or  di 
vision  of  it  must  also  mark  the  same.  Lastly,  facts  correspond.  Antio 
chus,  as  is  well  known,  suspended  all  the  temple  rites  for  three  and  a  half 
years,  during  three  of  which  he  offered  up  his  abominable  heathen  sacri 
fices  (c^ili  'ppiEft  )  to  Jupiter  Olympius  in  the  temple.  Surely  it  is  the 
same  personage  who  lays  waste  city  and  sanctuary  (v.  26),  that  suspends 
the  temple  offerings  in  the  present  case.  Ch.  8:  11  settles  this  question. 
To  suppose,  with  Hengst.  and  Hav.,  that  the  death  of  the  Messiah 
(v.  26)  suspends  the  temple-rites,  and  that  this  is  done  merely  in  theory 
and  by  way  of  anticipation,  and  does  not  take  place  as  a  fact  during  the 
half  of  the  seven  years  in  question,  is  quite  contrary  to  the  tenor  of  the 
book  before  us.  If  then  it  be  fact  (the  desolations  of  city  and  sanc 
tuary  surely  are  facts),  that  the  sacrifices  and  oblations  did  not  cease 
until  more  than  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  how  can  all  this  be 
assigned  here  to  the  limits  of  three  and  a  half  years  ?  Besides,  the  per 
son  who  makes  the  covenant  with  many,  is  the  same  who  causes  the  sacri 
fice  and  oblation  to  cease;  and  this  covenant  continues  through  the 
whole  seven  years.  Of  course  Antiochus,  or  whoever  makes  it,  does  not 


CHAP.  IX.  27.  297 

quit  the  stage  of  action  before  the  whole  seven  years  are  passed.  It  is 
during  the  latter  half  of  the  seven,  then,  beyond  all  reasonable  question, 
that  the  sacrifice  and  oblations  are  suspended  ;  and  at  the  end  of  this,  (as 
the  remainder  of  v.  27  shows),  the  person  who  suspends  them  is  cut  off. 
Now  this  disagrees  entirely  with  the  Messianic  chronology.  According 
to  the  usual  computation,  our  Saviour's  ministry  lasted  but  three  and  a 
half  years,  and  this  of  course  comes  in  t\\Q  first  part  of  the  seven  years, 
i.e.  his  death  followed  the  first  half  of  these.  According  to  our  text,  the 
death  of  him,  who  made  the  covenant  with  many  for  seven  years  and 
suspended  the  temple-rites  during  the  last  half,  took  place  after  this  sus 
pension  had  continued  three  and  a  half  years.  It  is  impossible  to  recon 
cile  the  theory  of  Hengstenberg  and  Ha\  ernick  here,  with  the  plain  and 
obvious  meaning  of  the  writer. 

He  will  make  sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease  evidently  means,  in  its  con 
nection,  remove  them  by  violence,  forcibly  suspend  them.  He  who  destroys 
city  and  sanctuary  (v.  26)  ;  he  who  treads  down  the  sanctuary  and  its 
sacred  retinue  (8: 13),  is  the  person  of  whom  this  is  said,  and  who  actually 
did  what  is  here  described. 

Nor  is  this  all.  He  will  carry  his  impiety  to  the  daring  length  of  in 
troducing  the  symbols  of  the  god  whom  he  worships,  into  the  holy  temple ; 
so  that  while  they  are  worshipped  by  their  appropriate  rites,  the  sanctu 
ary  becomes  desolate  in  regard  to  true  worshippers  and  all  their  offerings. 
None  will  repair  thither,  because  of  the  shocking  abominations  of  idol- 
offerings, and  idol-images.  So,  or  something  like  to  this,  does  the  follow 
ing  difficult  clause  seem  to  testify  :  DE-fete  n^xipiB  ?)33  bri ,  and  over  the 
winged-fowl  of  abominations  shall  be  a  waster.  I  need  not  repeat  the 
almost  numberless  conjectures  about  the  meaning  of  this  passage.  ?53 
seems  to  me  to  mean  neither  summit,  roof,  nor  pinnacle  of  the  temple. 
The  word  is  often  used  for  borders  of  a  garment,  a  country,  of  the  earth, 
etc.  But  to  designate  height  upward,  instead  of  extension  or  lyreadth,  re 
quires  a  very  different  word  from  £):3  .  The  border  of  a  thing  or  object 
is  not  the  height  or  summit  of  it.  To  compare  it  with  nreqvfio*  rov  ISQOV 
(Matt.  4:  5),  seems  not  to  be  much  to  the  purpose,  until  we  better  un 
derstand  the  meaning  of  this  phrase,  which  as  yet  remains  somewhat 
uncertain.  The  summit  of  the  temple  was,  we  are  told,  filled  with  sharp 
pyramidical  prominences  to  prevent  the  birds  from  lighting  upon  it.  This 
would  be  no  place,  then,  for  Bi2Mp>izJ ,  i.  e.  idol-statues.  Gesenius  thinks, 
that  the  statue  of  Jupiter  Olympius,  (possibly  of  Antiochus),  was  placed 
conspicuously  on  the  temple  roof.  Tiie  sense  in  itself  is  not  an  uninvit 
ing  one  ;  but  we  have  to  make  two  changes  in  order  to  bring  it  about. 
First  we  must  read  ijfi  t]S3  b? ,  on  the  roof  [are]  idols  ;  and  secondly,  we 


298  CHAP.  IX.  27. 

must  convert  summit  or  extremity,  into  roof  or  cov ering.  Figuratively 
this  last  would  answer  tolerably  well  for  wing,  5533 .  But  besides  all  this, 
we  are  here  met  with  still  another  difficulty,  viz.  that  traafta  which  fol 
lows  is  in  the  singular.  Cases  of  a  plural  with  a  part,  or  adj.  singular 
there  are,  but  only  when  the  plural  form  designates  a  single  agent  or  ob 
ject,  e.  g.  rr^  E"1?^.  When  persons  are  designated  in  the  plural,  and 
each  individual  is  emphatically  meant,  the  predicate  may  be  in  the  sing., 
as  in  Prov.  3: 18.  27: 16.  28:  1.  Gen.  27:  29.  Ex.  31:  14.  But  neither 
of  these  cases  is  homogeneous  with  the  one  now  before  us.  D*x*ipEJ  is 
not  a  pluralis  mojestaticus,  nor,  so  far  as  we  can  discover,  is  individuality 
designed  particularly  to  be  included  in  it,  or  expressed  by  it.  We  can 
not  accept,  therefore,  of  such  a  solution  of  the  difficulty  ;  certainly  not  if 
we  can  find  a  better  one. 

The  proposal  of  Hengstenberg.  Havernick,  Lengerke,  and  others  to 
apply  d^xiptzj  to  the  temple,  which  had  been  polluted  by  the  Jews,  is 
without  parallel  and  contrary  to  all  Heb.  usage  elsewhere.    The  prophets 
speak  indeed  of  hypocritical  offerings  and  incense  as  an  abomination 
(Sias'in),  Isa.  1:  13  ;  they  intimate  that  the  doings  of  the  dissembling  and 
heathenish-minded  Jews  made  Jehovah  loathe  his  dwelling-place ;  but 
all  this  is  far  enough  from  vindicating  such  an  appellation  of  the  temple 
itself  in  Daniel,  as  D^p'J .   Daniel  calls  it  i!Hp,  8: 13,14 ;  id'npB  ",'1313 ,  8: 
11.    In  9:  26,  also,  he  names  it  tn'pn,  and  in  9: 16  we  have  thy  city,  thy 
sanctuary  and  thy  people.     In  most  of  these  cases,  also,  he  is  speaking  of 
the  temple  in  the  same  circumstances  as  in  our  text.     Comp.  also  Dan. 
12:  7.     Such  an  exegesis,  then,  makes  against  all  usage  elsewhere,  and 
against  the  whole  current  of  Hebrew  feeling.      The  holy  city,  the  sanctu 
ary,  is  the  indelible  and  eternal  name  stamped  upon  these  objects.     Down 
to  the  present  hour,  even  the  very  Moslems  call  the  city  El  Qods,  i.  e. 
ttKpn .      o^sMpis  then  is  a  noun  which  qualifies  or  limits  W3 .    It  means 
always  idolatrous  rites  or  abominations,  or  else  idol-images  or  statues. 
Abominations,  in  the  general  sense  of  wicked  deeds,  it  never  designates. 
Another  word  (msi'n)  is  employed  in  such  a  sense.   To  suppose  W3  to 
mean  summit,  pinnacle,  and  then  translate  over  the  pinnacle  of  idols  or  of 
idolatrous  abominations  is  the  destroyer,  and  finally  to  apply  this  so  as  to 
designate  the  treading  down  and  crushing   the  sacred   edifice  and  its 
appurtenances,  is  even  more  strange  than  to  use  a^piE  as  a  designation 
of  the  temple.    Where  in  all  the  Bible  is  such  an  image  employed  as 
being  over  the  pinnacle  of  a  thing,  in  order  to  designate  the  violence  done 
to  it  by  a  conqueror,  or  to  mark  his  sovereign  control  ?     To  tread  down, 
to  trample  upon,  is  indeed  imagery  everywhere  employed ;  but  to  be  over 
a  pinnacle,  or  a  summit,  is  an  expression  revolting  both  to  good  taste  and 


CHAP.  IX.  27.  299 

to  Heb.  usage.  To  me,  at  least,  it  seems  passing  strange,  to  apply  such 
expressions  to  the  domineering  sway  of  Antiochus  in  Jerusalem,  or  (with 
Hengst.  and  Hav.)  to  Titus  and  his  final  destruction  of  the  temple. 

But  if  the  meaning  summit  and  roof  be  denied  to  C]53 ,  only  three  other 
meanings  remain,  viz.,  that  of  wing,  of  bird  or  winged-fowl,  and  of  border  or 
extreme  limit.  To  give  to  v]3S  the  meaning  of  army-wings,  cannot  well 
be  conceded.  Rosenmuller,  indeed,  gives  the  clause  this  turn  :  "  Exer- 
citui  detestando  vastator  dux  praeerit."  He  supposes  that  ti23  ,  like  the 
Latin  ala,  may  mean  the  wing  of  an  army.  But  if  an  army  is  to  be 
spoken  of  collectively,  in  this  way,  we  should  expect  wings  (n^E23),  not 
wing  (sing.)  to  designate  it.  Isa.  8:  8  and  18:  1,  to  which  Rosenm.  ap 
peals,  will  hardly  bear  him  out ;  for  in  both  cases  a  different  meaning 
of  the  word  is  more  probable.  In  fact,  the  word  £23  does  not  seem  to 
be  employed  in  such  a  sense.  Ezekiel  employs  trs^JS;  (plur.  only)  in  the 
tropical  sense  of  army-wings  ;  see  Lex.  sub  v.  Besides,  how  flat  it  would 
be,  after  saying  that  the  people,  i.  e.  the  army,  of  a  prince  who  will  in 
vade  Judea,  have  marred  city  and  sanctuary,  and  after  describing  all  the 
devastations  which  they  had  committed  under  his  guidance  and  direction, 
to  add  that  he  had  supremacy  over  them,  or  (in  other  words)  was  their 
leader.  Not  so  Daniel.  The  discourse  advances.  First,  the  invader  mars 
city  and  temple.  Next,  he  prohibits  sacrifices  and  oblations  to  Jehovah, 
on  the  part  of  the  Jews.  Then  he  sets  up  the  statue  and  other  insignia 
of  his  own  chosen  god,  Jupiter  Olympius,  in  the  temple,  where  sacrifices 
abominable  to  the  Jews  were  offered  in  conformity  with  the  usages  of  the 
heathen.  Lastly,  comes  the  fearful  end  of  him  who  has  desolated  the  city 
and  temple ;  for  in  his  turn  he  becomes  a  nrtti,  i.  e.  something  to  be  deso 
lated  or  destroyed.  Here  all  is  climactic,  and  the  tenor  of  the  discourse, 
viewed  in  this  light,  becomes  comparatively  easy  and  probable. 

If  now  we  assume  the  second  meaning,  winged-fowl,  how  shall  such  a 
meaning  be  rendered  probable  ?  The  fact  is  well  known,  that  Antiochus 
devoted  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  to  the  worship  of  Jupiter  Olympius, 
and  there  offered  the  appropriate  sacrifices.  It  is  said  of  him,  in  1  Mace. 
1:  45  seq.,  that  "  he  forbade  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  and  libations 
in  the  sanctuary,  and  [commanded]  to  profane  the  sabbaths  and  the  feast- 
days,  to  defile  holy  places  and  persons,  to  build  altars  and  sacred  en 
closures  (rsfisvq)  and  idol-apparatus,  and  to  sacrifice  swinish  and  unclean 
beasts  .  .  .  And  whosoever  would  not  obey  the  king's  command,  must  be 
put  to  death."  The  word  eidcofefa  (v.  47)  I  have  translated  idol-appara 
tus,  because  it  plainly  does  not  mean  idol-temple  here,  for  such  Antiochus 
had  no  need  to  build,  when  he  had  converted  the  temple  of  Jehovah  into  a 
place  of  worship  to  his  god.  The  Syriac  version  reads  sidwha  here, 


300  CHAP.  IX.  27. 

which  makes  the  sense  required.  But  BtfaJieta  may  be  regarded  as  a 
mere  neut.  pi.  adjective,  and  be  rendered  as  above.  Altars  and  sacred 
enclosures  and  sacrifices  necessarily  demanded  idol  representations  of  the 
god,  to  whom  the  offerings  were  made.  So  was  it  in  all  the  Greek  and 
Roman  world.  I  do  not  see  any  reason  to  doubt,  that  Antiochus  set  up 
the  statue  of  his  god.  "  They  built  or  set  up  f8&»fpm  f^/xco'tffw^  by  the  al 
tar,"  says  1  Mace.  1:  54,  i.  e.  dBW  p  sipisn .  I  understand  this  of  a  statue 
of  Jupiter  Olympius  erected  in  the  temple ;  and  this  statue,  as  is  well 
known,  usually  stood  over  an  eagle  at  its  feet  with  wide-spread  wings. 
Hence  D^sipd  5T33  bs ,  over  a  wing  of  abominations,  or  rather  over  an 
abominable  winged-fowl,  is  a  desolator.  That  C33  may  mean  the  possessor 
of  awing,  i.  e.  a  winged  fowl,  as  well  as  wing,  is  only  in  conformity  with 
abundant  analogies  in  Hebrew.  Such  a  meaning  it  has  in  Gen.  7:  14. 
d^sip'J  qualifies  qp_3 ,  §  104. 1,  and  shows  that  the  winged  bird  was  a  part 
of  the  heathen  symbols.  The  plural  seems  here  to  be  chosen  in  order 
that  a  connection  with  daiiia  may  be  avoided  by  the  reader.  The  horror 
and  disgust  which  such  a  spectacle  would  occasion  to  a  pious  Jew,  can 
more  easily  be  conceived  of  than  expressed.  But  the  wide-spread 
eagle-wings  is  not  all.  This  is  at  the  foot  of  an  image  that  stands  over 
it  (cj33  by),  which  image  is  here  characterized  by  the  appellation  tri!373 . 
Most  critics  have  referred  D'C'ilip  to  the  person  of  the  desolator, the  "prince 
who  will  come,"  i.  e.  most  of  those  who  refer  vs.  26,  27,  to  Antiochus. 
But  in  such  a  case,  how  could  the  article  be  dispensed  with  ?  It  would 
not  only  be  renewed  mention  of  the  person,  but  a  case  which  would  re 
quire  special  pains  not  to  be  misunderstood,  and  so  demand  specification. 
But  as  no  article  is  prefixed  to  n^ili^ ,  we  may  in  this  connection  refer  this 
word  to  the  statue  of  the  heathen  god,  which  is  very  significantly  named 
a  desolator,  from  the  effect  which  its  erection  in  the  temple  produced 
upon  the  Jewish  religious  rites  and  those  who  performed  them.  In  11: 
31,  the  yip'JJ  (idol)  has  the  same  participle  applied  to  it,  and  for  the  same 
reason.  The  temple  was  utterly  forsaken  by  all  but  apostates  to  heathen 
ism.  Everything  that  pertained  to  the  true  God  was  trodden  down  and 
destroyed.  In  this  case  d^iiiB  should  not  have  (as  it  has  not)  the  article ; 
for  it  is  neither  renewed  mention  of  a  thing,  nor  is  it  something  of  which 
the  reader  could  be  supposed  to  have  formed  an  antecedent  idea  in  his  own 
mind.  The  single  statue  of  Jupiter  is  spoken  of  in  the  sing,  number ; 
and  thus  the  whole  form  of  expression  falls  within  the  regular  laws  of 
grammar.  The  erection  of  such  an  image  with  its  winged  symbolical  bird, 
is  a  consummation  of  impiety,  which  goes  quite  beyond  the  inhibition  of 
the  Jewish  sacrifices  and  oblations.  Iniquity  is  now  come  to  the  full, 
and  therefore  must  be  punished. 


CHAP.  IX.  27.  301 

Hoffman  (Die  70  Jabre)  has  proposed  such  an  interpretation  as  that 
now  suggested.  In  his  Weissag.  und  Erfiill.  (s.  308),  he  seems  to  give 
the  preference  to  another  and  different  explanation,  \vhich  Steudel  (ut 
sup.  s.  47)  has  suggested.  The  verb  r;33  means  to  cover.  Of  course  n33 
may,  as  he  thinks,  retain  this  idea.  He  then  refers  it  to  a  covering  built 
on  the  Jewish  altar  by  Antiochus,  after  the  manner  of  the  heathen  ; 
which  was  profane  and  abominable  in  the  eyes  of  a  Hebrew,  who  was 
commanded  to  construct  his  altar  only  with  earth,  Ex.  20:  24.  On  the 
profanely  covered  altar  of  Antiochus,  heathen  abominations  were  offered. 
Hence  a  covering  of  abominations.  But  how  he  disposes  of  tEtifta ,  in 
this  case,  he  does  not  expressly  tell  us.  He  must  refer  it  to  r;33 .  But 
this  is  hard.  Over  the  covering  of  abominations  is  —  what?  feE1?  can 
hardly  designate  the  sacrifices  offered  there.  Is  Antiochus,  then,  desig 
nated  by  it,  as  presiding  over  the  heathen  altar  ?  If  so,  the  article  must 
be  prefixed.  An  altar-covering,  moreover,  could  hardly  be  regarded 
here,  as  answering  to  the  climactic  nature  of  the  discourse.  I  deem  his 
former  opinion,  therefore,  to  be  much  better  grounded. 

One  other  view  of  the  case  I  will  venture  to  suggest  —  a  possible  one 
if  not  probable  —  that  I  have  nowhere  met  with.  This  would  assume,  in 
the  present  case,  the  frequent  meaning  of  s:si ,  viz.  border,  extremity^ 
and  then  translate  thus  :  On  the  border  of  idols  or  idol-places,  will  be  the 
destroyer.  The  ground  of  this  exegesis  may  be  found  in  the  history  of 
Antiochus.  After  the  ravages  committed  by  him  in  Jerusalem,  he  went 
into  the  East  (see  Dan.  11:  44)  to  avenge  himself  there  for  offences;  and 
in  Persia  he  entered  forcibly  the  great  temple  at  Elymais,  and  robbed  it 
of  its  treasures.  The  people  of  that  region,  exasperated  by  his  sacrilege, 
rose  en  masse  and  forced  him  to  retreat.  On  that  retreat  he  was  overtaken 
with  the  news  of  the  destruction  of  his  army  in  Palestine,  and  the  victo 
rious  entrance  of  Judas  into  Jerusalem.  Through  fatigue,  or  exasperation 
and  disappointment,  or  a  combination  of  both,  he  fell  into  a  raging  fever, 
and  died  after  a  very  short  space  in  that  condition.  If  now  we  may  sup 
pose  our  text  to  look  to  this,  there  is  a  regular  progress  in  the  narration  : 
after  all  his  outrages  in  Palestine,  he  goes  to  the  border  or  extremity 
of  the  idol  countries.,  robs  an  idol-temple  there,  and  then  the  destruction, 
predicted  in  the  next  clause,  hastens  on.  It  is  an  augmentation  of  hia 
woes,  that  he  perishes  in  a  distant  land.  The  destroyer  (orbr),  to  use 
the  language  applied  to  this  very  expedition  in  Dan.  11:  44,  "  went  forth 
with  great  fury  to  destroy,  and  utterly  to  make  away  with  many,"  and, 
in  so  doing,  he  himself  becomes  a  C"cb,  i.  e.  is  utterly  destroyed.  —  If  it 
be  objected  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  it  is  too  specific,  let  any  one 
read  Dan.  xi.  and  he  will  no  more  insist  on  such  an  objection.  It  can- 
26 


302  CHAP.  IX.  27. 

not  be  denied,  moreover,  that  the  prediction  is  thus  regularly  climactic, 
and  that  it  is  full  of  meaning.  The  only  serious  doubts  would  arise  from 
another  quarter.  Would  his  eastern  journey  or  expedition  be  described 
in  language  so  obscure,  and  so  alien  from  the  usual  methods  of  describing 
such  events  ?  And  then,  in  case  Antiochus  is  designated  by  C^te^ ,  how 
could  the  article  be  dispensed  with  in  such  a  renewed  mention  of  him  ? 
These  two  considerations  occasion  doubt  and  hesitation.  There  is  some 
what  less  of  difficulty  in  the  solution  given  above  ;  at  least  there  is  less  of 
grammatical  difficulty.  But  the  general  sense  of  the  passage  is  plainly 
more  striking,  on  the  ground  last  assumed. 

r&3  isi ,  but  unto  destruction.  Wieseler  (Die  70  Wochen,  s.  42  seq.) 
strenuously  defends  the  position,  that  nbs>  is  a  verb  here,  employed  in  its 
usual  sense.  He  translates  thus :  And  until  it  [the  half-week]  is  completed, 
etc.  His  arguments  are  unsatisfactory,  nr  must  mean  either  while  or 
during,  or  else  unto,  even  to.  Thus  understood,  it  would  make  the  death 
of  the  tyrant,  which  the  next  clause  predicts,  to  happen  during  the  half- 
week,  or  to  be  taking  place  until  that  was  completed ;  so  that  Antiochus 
must,  at  all  events,  on  such  a  ground,  have  died  either  before  the  end  of 
the  three  and  a  half  years,  or  just  at  that  point.  But  neither  of  these 
positions  is  true.  There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  right  to  take  !~ib3  as 
a  noun,  for  such  a  usage  is  frequent.  As  little  question  can  there  be,  as  to 
its  energetic  meaning.  The  verb  means  to  consummate,  to  finish,  to  com 
plete,  etc. ;  and  of  course  the  noun  designates  consummation,  a  full  end  of, 
a  finishing  off 'with  ;  —  a  mode  of  expression  stronger  than  that  of  mere 
excision,  etc.  Such  was  to  be  the  end  of  the  tyrant.  The  "\  in  151  is 
best  rendered  by  but.  The  sentiment  of  the  verse  stands  arranged  thus  : 
(  He  will  make  a  firm  league  with  many  apostate  Jews ;  for  three  and  a 
half  years  will  he  remove  the  sacrifices  and  oblations  of  the  temple ;  he 
will  even  erect  a  statue  of  Jupiter  there,  accompanied  by  its  usual  eagle 
with  expanded  wings  at  its  feet  —  but  a  dreadful  reverse  will  overtake 
him ;  the  overwhelming  indignation  of  Heaven,  that  which  is  irreversi 
bly  decreed,  will  make  an  utter  and  final  end  of  him.'  Thus  all  is  smooth 
and  easy. 

^nn  ns'nriS'i ,  even  that  which  is  decreed,  it  shall  be  poured  out,  or  even  de- 
Creed  [destruction]  shall  be  poured  out.  The  accents  follow  the  sense  of 
the  first  rendering,  and  divide  accordingly,  putting  a  Zakeph  Qdton  on 
nsHni  .  Of  course,  if  we  follow  them,  the  verb  is  impersonal,  or  at  least 
a  kind  of  constructio  praegnans  which  implies  r&3  for  its  Nom.,  or  else 
wrath,  indignation,  or  curse,  is  implied.  The  verb  ^P3  is  not  used  in  the 
literal  sense,  but  only  in  the  tropical  one ;  and  it  is  always  joined  with 
some  subject  like  those  just  named,  which  makes  the  verb  easy  to  be  un- 


CHAP.  IX.  27.  303 

derstood,  if  it  be  employed  in  an  elliptical  way.  It  is  a  kind  of  terminus 
technicus  for  the  expression  of  such  ideas ;  and  being  intransitive,  it 
readily  goes  over  into  a  passive  sense.  If  we  follow  the  accents,  then, 
there  is  no  serious  difficulty  in  the  construction.  But  if  we  depart  frorn 
them,  and  take  fis^na  as  a  participial  noun,  and  as  the  Norn,  to  Tjnn , 
then  all  is  easy  and  obvious.  This  member  of  the  clause  is  an  advance 
upon  rtbs  15.  It  designates  a  total  end  which  is  definitely  decreed  by 
Heaven,  and  this  decree  is  beyond  control  and  irreversible.  The  very 
same  sentiment  is  developed  in  ns'lnDi.  fibs  in  Isa.  10:  23.  28:  22.  The 
accession  of  energy  and  definiteness  to  the  threat,  from  the  addition  of 
n^"n3l ,  must  be  obvious  to  every  one  familiar  with  the  Hebrew.  The 
imagery  of  pouring  out  originates  here  in  !i;£5&J3  "i^E!  of  v-  26,  and  is  there 
fore  both  natural  and  forcible. 

trc'vJ  b? ,  upon  him  who  is  to  be  made  desolate.  Quite  different  from 
oca's  (the  destroyer,  waster)  is  the  participial  intrans.  form,  SEVIJ.  It  has 
always  a  passive  sense,  and  therefore  means  delendus,  vastandus,  one  who 
is  or  ought  to  be  destroyed.  The  first  is  the  6  avOQwnoq  rift  ttftaQTtctfr 
and  the  second  is  the  o  viof  TIJG  durtftUittf,  of  Paul  in  2  Thess.  2:  3, 
who  seems  to  have  had  his  mind  on  the  passage  before  us.  In  the  ex 
pression  is  substantially  couched  the  favorite  nttQWOfUUMt  of  the  He 
brews  ;  the  desolator,  waster  shall  be  o^cru  (wasted). 

Thus  ends  the  second  great  national  trial  of  the  Jews.  The  tyrant 
who  brought  it  upon  them,  falls  in  the  midst  of  his  contests  and  of  his 
vengeance,  and  with  his  fall,  the  august  drama  closes,  as  in  ch.  vii.  viii.  xi. 

It  would  be  little  to  my  present  purpose,  to  give  a  minute  history  of  all  the 
interpretations  that  have  been  put  upon  the  passage  respecting  the  seventy 
weeks,  and  of  the  efforts  made  to  sustain  them.  Most  of  them  depend  on 
some  a  priori  conception  of  what  Daniel  ought  to  say,  rather  than  on  a 
philologico-historical  deduction  from  what  he  has  said.  For  my  present 
purpose,  I  need  to  notice  only  two  classes  of  interpretation  ;  (l)  The  exclu 
sively  Messianic.  (2)  The  exclusively  Anti-Messianic.  Of  these,  in  their 
order,  I  shall  speak  very  briefly. 

(1)  THE  EXCLUSIVELY  MESSIANIC.  An  anointed  one,  a  prince  (v.  25), 
is  converted  into  the  Messiah,  the  Prince,  i.  e.  Christ  the  King  of  kings. 
The  cutting  off  of  an  Anointed  One  (in  v.  26)  is  the  violent  death  of  Jesus, 
the  Messiah ;  ib  "pxi  designates  his  vicarious  Buffering  for  sinners.  The 
time  when  he  entered  on  his  public  ministry,  is  the  terminus  ad  quern  of 
the  sixty-two  weeks  and  the  seven  weeks ;  and  these  two  distinct  periods 
are  combined  into  one,  which  is  made  to  commence,  not  with  Cyrus'  proc 
lamation,  nor  yet  with  that  of  Darius,  but  with  that  of  Artaxerxes  in  the 
twentieth  year  of  his  reign.  Nor  is  this  all  that  is  assumed.  Not  only  is 
the  period  of  the  birth  of  Christ  arbitrarily  set  aside  from  the  calculation, 
but  in  order  to  adjust  the  sixty-nine  weeks  to  the  period  of  his  entrance  on 
his  public  ministry,  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  is  made  ten  years  longer  than 


304  CHAP.  IX.  27. 

the  most  authentic  histories  make  it,  i.  e.  fifty-one  years  instead  of  forty-one, 
and  so  much  is  then  taken  from  the  reign  of  his  father  Xerxes.  With  all 
these  assumptions,  the  sixty-nine  weeks  (62  -f-  7)  or  483  years  are  at  last 
adjusted  to  the  period,  when  Jesus  was  baptized  and  entered  on  his  official 
work.  In  this  way  two  portions  of  the  seventy  weeks  are  summarily  dis 
posed  of. 

I  need  not  here  repeat  the  objections  to  most  of  these  positions,  which 
have  already  been  made  in  the  preceding  pages.  Most  of  these  objections, 
to  say  the  least,  are  founded  in  philology  and  in  history,  as  well  as  in  the 
analogy  of  the  book  in  general.  Enough  of  them,  at  all  events,  will  abide 
the  test,  and  are  entirely  unanswerable.  But  if  not,  what  follows  in  re 
spect  to  the  one  remaining  week,  is  decisive  of  the  whole  matter. 

According  to  v.  26,  an  anointed  one  is  to  be  cut  off  at  the  close  of  the 
•sixty-two  weeks,  and  of  course  at  the  beginning  of  the  one  week,  i.  e.  seven 
years.  The  interpreters  in  question,  however,  make  his  excision  three  and 
a  half  years  later.  But  it  is  quite  plain,  that  it  is  during  the  remainder  of 
the  week,  i.  e.  during  the  next  and  latter  three  and  a  half  years,  that  our 
text  makes  the  principal  desolations  of  the  city  and  sanctuary  to  take  place, 
and  the  invader  perishes  at  the  close  of  this  period.  The  exclusive!}'  Mes 
sianic  interpreters,  however,  make  Titu*  the  desolator,  and  the  Roman  army 
the  people  whom  he  leads  on  to  waste  the  city  and  the  sanctuary.  But  if 
Christ  was  crucified  in  A.  D.  34,  and  Titus  invested  Jerusalem  in  A.  D. 
70,  we  have  thirty-six  intervening  years  instead  of  three  and  a  half  before 
his  work  of  ruin  ;  —  a  matter  which,  in  such  a  book  of  accurate  dates  as  the 
one  before  us,  is  inadmissible  beyond  all  question.  Besides,  how,  where,  did 
Titus  die?  Under  any  special  tokens  of  divine  vengeance,  such  as  9:  27 
predicts  and  threatens  to  the  waster?  We  know  not  where  to  find  these 
tokens.  But  further,  when  did  he  die  ?  In  A.  D.  81.  Instead  of  perishing 
then  at  the  close  of  the  noted  last  week,  his  death  took  place  some  forty- 
seven  years  afterwards. 

In  a  word,  history  is  at  utter  and  irreconcilable  variance  with  the 
scheme  of  interpretation  in  question.  It  is  indeed  wonderful  that  it  ever 
could  have  been  advocated  by  sensible  men.  According  to  this  scheme, 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Roman  power  are  almost  the  only  agents  developed 
in  the  prophecy  ;  whereas  it  lies  upon  the  very  face  of  v.  24,  that  the  seven 
ty  weeks  PRECEDE  the  coming  of  the  true  Messiah.  The  blessings  there 
promised,  are  not  bestowed  until  after  those  weeks  are  completed. 

(2)    THE  EXCLUSIVELY  ANTI-MESSIANIC  INTERPRETATION.       Wiesclcr 

(in  his  Die  siebzig  Wochen)  has  concentrated  all  that  has  been  said,  and  I 
may  add,  all  that  can  well  be  said,  in  favor  of  this.  He  possesses  distin 
guished  critical  skill,  and  withal  a  discriminating  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew. 
All  turns,  however,  on  v.  24.  Vs.  25 — 27  must  undoubtedly  be  conceded 
to  him,  for  reasons  like  to  those  already  assigned  above,  in  defence  of  the 
interpretation  which  I  have  given.  I  can  not  doubt,  for  a  moment,  that 
these  verses  refer  to  Antiochus.  But  for  the  reasons  stated  (in  Comrn.  on 
v.  24),  I  can  by  no  means  concede  to  him  the  position,  that  the  good  there 
designated  has  respect  only  to  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile.  Com 
parison  of  actual  history  with  the  splendid  prospects  and  promises  held  out 
in  v.  24,  will  show  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  fulfilment  of  those 
predictions  must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  in  the  return  from  exile. 


CHAP.  IX.  27.  305 

My  leading  reasons  for  choosing  the  medium  tier,  in  this  case,  arise  from 
no  design  to  "  split  the  difference"  between  the  two  conflicting  views  just 
stated.  Long  before  I  could  obtain  a  [sight  of  Wieseler  and  Hoffman  on 
the  seventy  weeks  and  years,  I  had  come,  from  the  simple  study  of  the  text, 
substantially  to  the  same  conclusion  that  I  have  now  developed.  But  some 
particulars  of  the  prophecy  continued  still  to  be  dark.  On  these,  the  two 
writers  just  named  have  cast  some  new  light.  All  seems  capable  of  reason 
able  illustration,  and  even  of  a  good  degree  of  certainty,  with  the  exception 
of  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  seven  weeks,  and  the  particular  period 
which  they  designate,  and  perhaps  the  clause  respecting  D^puJ  Ci52> .  The 
last  seems,  however,  in  some  good  measure,  to  be  illustrated  by  historical 
facts  respecting  the  worship  of  Jupiter  Olympius  at  Jernsalein,  and  the 
statue  with  the  usual  symbol  of  the  "  winged-fowl."  The  seven  weeks,  I 
regret  to  say,  remain  for  future  efforts  ;  which  however  need  not  be  de 
spaired  of.  In  the  meantime,  I  must  try  to  console  myself  for  my  own 
ignorance,  with  a  Non  omnia  possumus  omnes. 

All  the  close  of  this  protracted  examination  of  9:  24 — 27,  it  may  be 
useful  to  recapitulate  summarily,  and  to  compare  the  whole  with  the  other 
predictions  of  Daniel. 

The  Babylonish  exile  was  to  continue  seventy  years ;  Jer.  25:  11.  29: 
10.  Dan.  9:  2.  Near  the  close  of  these,  Daniel  betook  himself  to  earnest 
prayer,  that  the  fulfilment  of  the  prediction  that  the  Jews  should  return  from 
their  exile,  might  speedily  be  developed,  Dan.  9:  2,  3.  Gabriel  is  commis 
sioned  to  make  a  new  announcement  to  him,  of  what  would  take  place  after 
the  exile  and  before  the  coming  of  the  great  deliverer.  This  he  does,  by 
still  preserving  the  number  seventy,  but  converting  this  into  so  many  weeks 
of  years,  (lit.  seventy  besevened),  instead  of  simple  years  which  belonged  to 
the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah.  The  great  question  here  is,  or  rather  should 
be,  (for  in  time  past  little  or  no  attention  has  been  paid  to  it)  :  Does  the 
period  of  seventy  weeks  cover  the  whole  ground,  from  the  time  of  Daniel's 
vision  to  the  coming  of  Christ?  The  greatest  possible  effort  has  been  often 
made,  to  bring  about  a  union  of  the  end  of  the  seventy  weeks  with  the 
period  of  Christ's  birth,  or  of  his  public  ministry.  Of  course  the  terminus 
a  quo  has  been  the  principal  point  of  controversy ;  in  as  much  as  there  has 
generally  been  at  least  a  tacit  concession,  that  the  terminus  ad  quern  must 
be  one  of  the  points  just  mentioned.  But  history  baffles  all  attempts  to 
accomplish  the  object  in  question.  From  Daniel's  vision  down  to  the  birth  of 
Christ,  is  some  538  years;  and  seventy  weeks  make  but  490,  i.  e.  forty- 
eight  years  less.  Attempts  to  find  the  proclamation  to  rebuild  in  Jer. 
xxix  ;  in  Cyrus'  edict,  in  that  of  Darius,  or  that  of  Artaxerxes ;  are  all  frus 
trated  by  history  again ;  and  this  matter  must  be,  after  all,  given  up  as 
impracticable  by  these  means.  But  then,  (if  we  may  be  permitted  to  ask 
the  question),  what  need  of  all  this  trouble  ?  Is  it  any  part  of  the  angel's 
design  to  place  the  seventy  weeks  in  such  an  attitude  ?  To  me  it  seems  plain, 
that  it  is  not.  In  all  the  prophetic  pages  of  the  O.  Test.,  or  of  the  New, 
where  does  any  prophecy  assume  the  attitude  of  a  book  of  Annals  1  The 
nearest  approach  is  in  Dan.  xi. ;  but  even  here,  there  are  merely  touches 
on  the  fourth  dynasty,  until  we  come  to  the  Jita? ,  the  DTafcio ,  Antiochus. 
We  have  then  only  one  prophetic  history  of  one  ting,  in  all  the  Scriptures 
which  is  annalistic ;  and  the  Syrian  tyrant  is  that  king.  For  the  rest ;  great 

26* 


306  CHAP.  IX.  27. 

events,  and  those  only  are  described.  When  these  cease,  prophecy  lays 
aside  her  pen,  and  keeps  silence.  The  reason  is  obvious,  viz.  that  only 
such  events  are  adapted  to  instruct  by  making  deep  impressions.  The 
ordinary  course  of  events  does  not  attract  the  prophetic  eye ;  and  so  no 
sketch  of  them  is  drawn. 

This  consideration  liberates  us  at  once  from  all  necessity  of  forcing  the 
terminus  ad  quern  of  the  seventy  weeks  into  a  union  with  the  year  of  Christ's 
birth,  or  of  his  public  ministry.  All  that  the  angel  designs  to  commu 
nicate  is,  that  as  there  had  been  seventy  years  of  exile  in  regard  to  the 
Jews,  seven  times  that  number  must  pass  away,  before  they  would  cease  to 
be  troubled  in  like  manner,  and  before  the  Messiah  would  come.  Sixty- 
two  of  these  are  "  troublous  times,"  but  the  following  one  week  (=  seven 
years)  is  to  renew  all  the  horrors  of  the  Babylonish  invasion,  and  even  more, 
on  the  score  of  impiety  and  persecution.  With  these  last  seven  years, 
times  so  hazardous  to  the  nation  and  to  religion  are  to  cease,  until  the 
coming  of  Christ.  So  much,  but  no  more,  seems  to  be  plainly  within  the 
design  and  scope  of  the  angel's  communication.  And  of  course,  we  have, 
on  this  ground,  no  special  interest  to  seek  for  a  union  of  the  terminus  ad 
quern  of  the  seventy  weeks  with  the  year  of  Christ's  birth  or  of  his  entering 
on  public  office.  We  can  leave  it  wherever  it  falls  or  terminates,  as  com 
prising  all  that  was  specially  interesting  for  prophecy  to  disclose. 

Inasmuch  now  as  the  period  of  sixty-two  weeks  has  no  terminus  a  quo 
expressly  assigned  to  it,  it  would  seem  to  be  not  inapposite,  that  it  should  be 
regarded  as  already  virtually  designated  by  the  beginning  of  the  seventy 
years  in  Jeremiah.  So  some  have  understood  the  matter.  Then  all  that 
follows  they  consider  as  supported  and  illustrated  by  historical  facts.  An- 
tiochus  began  to  vex  the  Jews,  in  B.  C.  171,  (i.  e.  sixty-two  weeks  = 
434  years  after  B.  C.  606  when  Jeremiah's  seventy  years  begin)  ;  and  in 
that  year  an  anointed  one,  a  lawful  high-priest,  Onias  III.,  was  cut  off,  and 
the  people  had  no  other  legitimate  officer  of  this  rank  until  after  the  death 
of  the  tyrant.  During  the  week  (seven  years)  that  followed,  Antiochus 
laid  waste  the  city  and  sanctuary;  for  three  and  a  half  years  he  took  away 
sacrifice  and  oblation  ;  he  erected  his  altar  and  his  idol-statue  in  the 
temple  of  God  ;  and  at  the  close  of  this  period,  and  of  course  at  the  close 
of  the  seven  years,  he  perished  by  a  miserable  death  in  a  foreign  land, 
whither  he  had  gone  to  commit  sacrilege  again.  How  is  it  possible,  they 
ask,  (and  with  no  small  appearance  of  right),  that  all  these  periods  should 
so  exactly  meet  the  facts  of  history,  and  at  so  many  points,  unless  the  exe 
gesis  that  we  have  given  is  well  grounded  ?  To  say  the  least,  they  add, 
facts  make  our  exegesis  altogether  probable. 

No  one  can  refuse  to  acknowledge  that  the  accordance  of  dates  and 
events,  in  this  case,  is  striking,  and  seemingly  decisive  at  first  view.  But  it 
must  be  remembered,  that  the  sixty-two  weeks  are  not  the  only  period  to 
be  provided  for.  What  is  to  be  done  with  the  seven  weeks  =  forty-nine 
years,  which  constitute  the  first  division  of  the  seventy  weeks  ?  —  No  room 
is  here  left  for  them  ;  or  if  any,  they  must  be  put  after  the  sixty -two  weeks, 
which  seems  to  be  at  least  an  unnatural  mode  of  exegesis.  Then  again  as 
to  the  sixty-two  weeks,  the  statement  in  Daniel  (v.  25)  is,  that  the  city  is 
to  be  in  a  course  of  rebuilding,  during  that  period,  and  of  rebuilding  in  a 
stinted  and  imperfect  manner,  by  reason  of  troublous  times.  Yet,  accord- 


CHAP.  IX.  27.  307 

ing  to  the  scheme  of  interpretation  which  we  are  now  examining,  the  first 
seventy  years  of  the  sixty-two  weeks  are  those  of  the  exile,  when  Jerusa 
lem  lay  all  the  time  in  ruins.  These  two  circumstances  seem  then,  after 
all,  to  decide  against  the  scheme  in  question.  Could  it  be  shown,  or  even 
made  probable,  that  the  seven  weeks  either  follow  the  sixty-two  weeks,  or 
are  coordinate  and  contemporaneous  with  a  part  of  the  latter,  then  all 
would  be  easy  of  explanation,  and  the  whole  paragraph  might  be  enucle 
ated,  and  placed  in  a  clear  and  satisfactoiy  light. 

Desirable  as  it  seems  to  be  to  bring  this  about,  I  cannot  on  the  whole  per 
suade  my  hermeneutical  conscience  to  be  reconciled  to  the  plan.  I  see  no 
satisfactory  way  of  removing  the  impression  which  the  text  makes,  of  three 
distinct  and  successive  periods,  viz.  of  seven,  sixty-two,  and  one  weeks.  The 
writer  seems  plainly  to  mean,  not  only  that  these  are  to  be  reckoned  so  as 
to  make  up  the  sum  of  seventy,  but  that  each  of  the  two  latter  periods  be 
gin,  when  the  preceding  one  ends.  How  else  can  seventy  weeks  be  made 
out  V  v 

That  there  were  events  and  persons  corresponding  to  what  the  angel 
declares,  I  cannot  well  doubt.  So  many  things  strikingly  correspond  with 
facts  known,  that  they  seem  to  be  a  pledge  for  the  certainty  of  the  rest. 
At  all  events,  my  ignorance  of  facts,  or  inability  to  see  how  our  text 
accords  with  those  that  we  do  know,  cannot  with  propriety  be  regard 
ed  as  decisive  evidence  against  the  correctness  and  truthfulness  of  the 
predictions.  As  history  now  lies  before  us,  I  am  unable  to  find  the  indicia 
of  the  first  period  of  seven  weeks.  Where  I  can  easily  make  out  a  termin 
us  a  quo,  I  fail  in  my  endeavors  to  find  the  terminus  ad  quern  and  so  vice 
versa.  And  this  is  equally  true,  if  I  amalgamate,  as  many  do,  the  periods 
of  seven  and  sixty-two  weeks.  The  beginning  and  end  of  the  sixty-nine 
weeks  thus  made,  i.  e.  483  years,  is  no  more  discoverable  in  our  histo 
ries,  than  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  seven  years.  At  least  the  face  of 
history  is  to  be  changed  and  remodelled,  in  respect  to  time,  in  order  to 
make  out  any  agreement  between  it  and  the  sixty-nine  weeks.  Moreover 
the  very  amalgamation  in  question  is,  as  has  already  been  shown,  against 
the  tenor  of  the  text,  and  against  actual  facts. 

I  have  exposed  myself,  perhaps,  to  an  accusation  not  very  unfrequent, 
viz.,  that  of  pulling  down  without  building  up.  But  if  I  have  endeavored 
to  pull  down,  only  where  the  foundations  were  tottering,  and  the  building 
ready  to  fall  by  a  slight  touch,  this  is  nothing  that  deserves  reprobation. 
It  is  a  first  step  toward  a  new  and  more  stable  edifice.  If  I  am  unable  to 
erect  it,  others  may  succeed.  May  all  prosperity  (so  do  I  devoutly  wish) 
attend  their  efforts !  But  I  will  not  pretend  to  know,  what  I  feel  conscious 
of  not  knowing  to  my  satisfaction.  I  much  prefer  the  confession  of  igno 
rance  to  a  pretension  of  knowledge,  specially  when  the  means  of  acqui-  , - 
ring  that  knowledge  are  not  within  our  power. 

A  few  words  more,  on  the  subject  of  applying  vs.  25 — 27  to  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  instead  of  the  Romans,  either  heathen  or  Christian,  and  I  have 
done. 

Does  the  tenor  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  as  to  its  prophecies,  tend  to  support 
and  confirm  the  exegesis  which  I  have  given  ?  The  answer  to  this  question 
must  be  in  the  affirmative.  Antiochus  does  not  indeed  appear  in  a  special 
manner,  in  chap.  ii.  But  he  is  virtually  there,  in  the  crushing  power  of 


308  CHAP.  IX.  27. 

the  fourth  dynasty.  His  fall  is  involved  in  that  of  the  dynasty,  2:  44.  In 
7:  7 — 11,  19 — 26,  Antiochus  specifically  appears,  in  all  his  cruelty  and 
blasphemy.  In  8:  9 — 12,  23 — 25,  he  is  still  more  graphically  described, 
and  as  possessing  the  same  characteristics.  Chap.  11:  21 — 45  is  even  a 
kind  of  historical  narration  of  him,  which  is  particular  beyond  any  example 
in  all  the  Scriptures.  His  doings  and  his  end  are  of  the  same  character  here 
as  before.  If  language  has  any  definite  meaning,  the  identification  of  the 
same  tyrant  in  all  these  prophecies  and  visions,  is  altogether  certain.  How 
comes  it  now,  that  all  these  prophecies  should  be  uniform  as  to  this  trait, 
and  the  present  one  (in  chap,  ix.)  be  discrepant  from  all  the  rest  ?  If  the 
exclusively  Messianic  interpreters  are  in  the  right,  then  Antiochus  is  not 
at  all  the  subject  of  the  prediction  in  9:  25 — 27.  But  if  analogy  has  any 
force,  it  is  quite  plain  that  we  might  expect  to  find  him  there.  That  he  is 
to  be  found  there,  we  have  seen,  if  any  credit  is  to  be  given  in  this  matter 
to  historical  facts  and  dates.  It  is  utterly  improbable  that  such  a  concur 
rence  could  exist  between  prediction  and  events  and  persons,  unless  there 
had  been  some  actually  designed  and  foreseen  coincidence,  i.  e.  unless  the 
one  were  prediction  and  the  other  fulfilment,  or  unless,  indeed,  the  book 
were  written,  as  some  have  uncritically  maintained,  post  eventum. 

If  one  now  will  patiently  go  through  with  a  comparison  of  the  express 
ions  and  events  in  the  prophecy  before  us,  he  will  be  forced  to  feel  that 
there  is  a  similarity  very  striking,  which  scarcely  leaves  any  room  for 
doubt.  Compare  the  cutting  off  of  the  high  priest  in  9:  26  and  11:  22; 
the  marring  of  the  city  and  sanctuary  in  9:  26,  and  in  11:  31,  also  in 
8:  24  ;  the  final  end  of  Antiochus  in  9:  26  and  8:  25 ;  the  covenanting 
with  many  in  9:  27,  and  11:  23,  30;  and  the  removing  of  sacrifice  and 
oblation  in  9:  27,  and  in  8:  12.  11:31.  12:  11.  Even  the  MX^.?)!  ^3-^? 
of  9:  27,  has  its  parallel  in  11:  35,  45.  The  2300  days  of  8:  iV'snoultfalso 
be  compared  with  the  one  week  of  9:  27,  with  due  allowance  for  the  dif 
ferences  in  the  things  presented  ;  the  1290  and  1335  days  of  12:  11,  12,  in 
respect  to  the  abolishing  of  sacrifice  and  oblation,  are  to  be  compared  (with 
the  like  allowance)  with  the  half-week  (=  three  and  a  half  years)  of  9:  27, 
with  which  must  also  be  joined  12:  7. 

When  all  this  is  done,  compare  the  development  of  the  Messianic  king 
dom  in  chap.  ii.  vii.  xii,  with  9:  24.  In  this  last  case,  the  Messianic  king 
dom  is  indeed  mentioned  first ;  but  still,  it  is  arranged  and  spoken  of  as 
the  last  in  order.  It  comes  not  until  after  the  end  of  the  seventy  weeks ; 
the  other  events  in  vs.  25 — 27  occur  during  that  period,  i.  e.  before  it  ends. 
Every  where  the  monarchies  predicted  or  brought  to  view  fall,  before  the 
new  and  perpetual  kingdom  arises.  How  then  can  any  of  them  be  the 
dynasty  of  the  Romans  ?  Is  there  not  throughout  the  whole  book,  a  har 
mony  so  complete,  that  it  amounts  to  nearly  all  but  the  repetition  of  the 
same  things  in  the  same  words  ?  In  any  case,  where  investigation  should 
be  made  without  any  favorite  theory  to  support,  and  without  the  aid  of  any 
a  priori  assumptions,  would  there  or  could  there  be  any  doubt,  as  to  what 
conclusions  we  should  adopt  ? 

For  the  gratification  of  the  reader's  curiosity,  and  also  for  the  sake  of 
supplying  him  with  the  means  of  comparing  different  attempts  to  translate 
vs.  24 — 27,  I  shall  here  subjoin  these  verses  in  various  translations,  so  that 
they  may  be  compared  with  the  original  text  and  with  each  other.  Per- 


CHAP.  IX.  27. 


309 


haps,  moreover,  he  who  examines  them  will  learn  to  estimate,  in  some  good 
measure,  the  difficulty  that  attends  the  pasage  in  question,  and  cease  to 
•wonder  at  the  diversity  of  translation  and  explanation  that  exists. 


m  dh 

p-j?  barn1)  snn1]  (25) 
rn\:rr"ir  db'jrvj  ^ 


rn    pisai 


airn 


(27) 


I.   The  Hebrew.  II.  Translation. 

T\na  B^3fT2  B^ya'3  (24)  (24)  Seventy  weeks  are  decided 

'^jl,'  ^Vb'  rrr'o"  vy-bsi. !  respecting  thy  people  and  thy  holy 
,"";•:  JQ^US  rSxwnl0'^'  to  restra'n  transgression,  and  to 
v.r  :\  '  T  :  J"~'  >'•"  *  "  j  seal  up  sin,  and  to  expiate  iniquity; 
1  and  to  bring  in  everlasting  righteous 
ness,  and  to  seal  vision  and  prophecy, 
and  to  anoint  a  holy  of  holies.  (25) 
Mark  well  and  understand  ;  from  the 
going  forth  of  a  command  to  rebuild 
Jerusalem  unto  an  anointed  one,  a 
prince,  shall  be  seven  week;- ;  and  sixty 
and  two  weeks  shall  it  be  rebuilt,  with 
broad  spaces  and  narrow  limits,  and 
in  troublous  times.  (26)  And  after 
sixty  and  two  weeks,  an  anointed  one 
shall  be  cut  off,  and  there  shall  be 
none  for  it  [the  people],  and  the 
city  and  the  sanctuary  shall  the  peo 
ple  of  a  prince  that  will  come  de 
stroy  ;  but  his  end  shall  be  with  an 
overwhelming  flood,  and  unto  the 
end  shall  be  war,  a  decreed  measure 
of  desolations.  (27)  And  he  shall 
firmly  covenant  with  many,  for  one 
week  ;  and  during  half  of  the  week, 
shall  he  cause  the  sacrifice  and  obla 
tion  to  cease ;  and  a  waster  shall  be 
over  a  winged  fowl  of  abominations  ; 
but  unto  destruction,  even  that  which 
is  decreed,  shall  there  be  an  outpour 
ing  upon  him  who  is  to  be  destroyed. 


"inx 

bsi 


III.   Version  of  the  Septuagint. 

(24)  'Efidofiqxovia  sfidopddEg  Ix- 
:v  iiii  zbv  "kaov  GOV,  xal  tm 


ict. 


K.al 


,  xat  rat,1  cc3txftt£ 

ttdtxinf,   xai 
zb  OQOfttt,  xcu 

aitovtoVy  xai 
OQUfictta     xcu 

.  (25) 
xat  £V' 


IV.  Theodolion,  (the  usual  text  of  our 
Sept.  Bible). 

(24)  'Eftdofiqxorta  spdopddfg  cv- 
veTpijftrjGav  s/rt  xov  7.(wv  GOV,  xai 
fTil  irp  7Tol.iv  irp  ftffav,  ewj,1  rov 
ntd.Qttofrtjirai  ib  aagttlttMutit,  xai 
zou  ffV9tt1te<S'(H]mtt  ofjurtpTta^j  xai 
lov  ittogstyiffat  ttfi€t(rTftt$,  xal  zov 
tipnt  foopnuf,  xal  TOV  i&ka- 
ftai.  ddixtaz,  xai  TOV  ayaynv  di- 
xaioavvrjv  alcovtov,  xal  TOV 


310  CHAP.  IX.  27. 


xai  EVQGeig  nQOGjy-  \  cat  OQaaw,  xa  7tQoq>tjrrjv,  xa  TOV 
uaTa  dnoxQi&ijvcu,  xal  oixodoiiqaeig  l  XQtaciiaytov  dyiwv.  (25)  Kal  yvco- 
lEQOVGal.tm  nohv  Kvyim.  (26)  Kal  0*77,  xal  avvijaeie,  dno  £$6dov  hoy  ay 
fiETa  snza,  xai  s^dofi^xovra^  xai  TOV  curoxQtvqvcu,  xai  TOV  olxoSoun- 
«JjJxorra  dvo  dnoGTa&rfGHai  %QIG-  -Oijvai  'leQOvacdvn,  Sag  XQIGTOV 
pa,  xal  ovx  sGTai,  xal  fiaaifat'a  l&-  nyovafiVov,  efidotudd8£  «;rr«,  xal  Ifi- 
vwv  (pfttQEi  Tiqv  Tiohv,  xai  TO  ayiov  dofidd^  s^ijxovzit  dvo  '  xal 
fieid  TOV  XQIGTOV  '  xal  q$£i  ^  aw-  tyeit  xal  oixodoprjOijatTai, 
Tsfeia  avzov  [IST  oQytjg,  xai  ^'cot,1  xai  TI£QITI-I%O£,  xai,  sx 
xaiQov  GvvtEteias,  and  notipQV  no-  ol  XCUQOI.  (26)  Kal  fisz  r^ 
l.EfAq&qGSTai.  (27)  Kai  dvvaffTev-  dopadag  Tas  l&jxovTa  dvo  f£ 
GSI  r\  dta^xt]  £/tf  ftpfaove,  xal  nd-  &()&>&JfG6TCU  ^QfG^a,  xal  xQipa  ovx 
hw  l7HGT£\jj£i,  xal  ^dvoixodo(jt]ftrjGe-  SOTW^  Iv  duT(p  •  xal  il]v  nolrv,  xal 
zai,  £/V  Tikdrog,  xai  {irjxos,  xal  "/.aid  tov  ayiov  dia(p&£Q8t  GVV  TO) 
GpvT&etav  xaiQwv  •  xal  ufTa  STITU  \  rep  ra5  e^o/ifi'rQ),  xal  I 
xai  sfido(AqxovTa  xaiQQvg,  xal  £@  w$  w  xaTaxl.vGfAca,  xai 
«rca^,  ta>s  xaiQov  Gvrzsksiag  noM-  nok^ov  avvtfTpiflt&w 
fiov  xal  dcpaiQE&tjaeTai  1}  BQJjpwJie  [Kal  dvrauwcEi^  dta&qxrp 
iv  TCQ  xaziG%vGai  xt^v  tofryxqr  lot  efidopdg  [iia  '  xal  fyiGV  T//S' 

xal  w  TCO  T&S.I  Sog  xavanavaei  Qvfiiaua,  xal  ftv- 
r\  frvGia,  \  Giav,  xaiGnov^i^v^  YAH  tfit 


xa   m    TO  IEQOV  fids-  \  zd^ei  dyavuTfJiov,  xal  t'cog 
Sffrcu    i-wg  \  a?,  xal  ffitovdqs  Ta±ei,  df 


fat  mi  r-ijv 


TWV  SQijucoGscav    ffrcu     -wg  a?,  xa    ffitovqs 

xal  GVVielitMt  8o&ijG6-  \  (27)  Kai  dvvafAOJGst,  dwt&ifxtp  ndk- 


V.   Vulgate  Version. 

(24)  Septuaginta  hebdomades  ab- 
breviatae  sunt  super  populum  tuum, 


soua£  uia,  xa   (v  TK> 


xal  GTiovdq,  xal  mi  TOVTOKS,  inl  TO 
ISQOV  fidskwyna  irfi  SQ^UWGEG)^  xal 
xaiQov  GWT&Eia  do- 
ini  tyv 


VI.  Syriac  Version  translated. 

(24)  Seventy  years  shall  rest  upon 
thy  people,  and  on  thy  holy  city,  to 


et  super  urbem  sanctam  tuara,  ut  make  an  end  of  iniquity  and  to  com- 
consummetur  praevaricatio,  et  finem !  plete  sin,  to  remit  transgression,  and 
accipiat  peccatum,  et  deleatur  iniqui- !  to  bring  in  righteousness  which  is 
tas,  et  adducatur  justitia  sempiterna, ;  eternal,  and  to  complete  prophetic 
et  impleatur  visio  et  prophetia,  et  un-  j  vision,  and  to  the  Messiah  the  Holy 
gatur  Sanctus  sanctorum.  (25)  Sci-  of  holies.  (25)  And  know  thou  and 
to  ergo  et  animadverte,  ab  exitu  ser- 1  understand,  that  from  the  going  forth 
monis  ut  iterum  aedificetur  Jerusa- !  of  the  command  to  return  and  to  re- 
lem,  usque  ad  Christum  ducem,  heb- 1  build  Jerusalem,  unto  the  coming  of 
domades  septem,  et  hebdomades  sex-  Messiah  the  king,  there  shall  be  seven 


aginta  duae  erunt ;  et  rursum  aedifi- 
cabitur  platea   et  muri  in   angustia 


weeks    and    sixty-two    weeks ;    one 
shall  return  and  rebuild  Jerusalem, 


temporum.  (26)  Et  post  hebdoma-  j  her  streets  and  her  broad  places,  unto 
des  sexaginta  duas  occidetur  Chris- '  the  end  of  time.  (26)  And  after 
tus ;  et  non  erit  ejus  populus  qui '  sixty-two  weeks,  the  Messiah  shall  be 
eum  negaturus  est.  Et  civitatem  et  slain,  and  there  shall  be  nothing  to 


CHAP.  IX.  27.  311 


sanctuarium  dissipabit  populus  cum 
duce  venture ;  et  finis  ejus  vastitas, 
et  post  fin  em  belli  statuta  desolatio. 
(27)  Confirmabit  autem  pactum  mul- 
tis  hebdornada  una ;  et  in  dimidio 
hebdomadis  deficiet  hostia  et  sacrifi- 
cium  ;  et  erit  in  templo  abominatio 
desolationis ;  et  usque  ad  consumma- 
tionem  et  finem  perseverabit  desola 
tio. 


it.  And  the  city  of  the  sanctuary 
shall  be  laid  waste,  with  a  king  who 
shall  come ;  and  its  destruction  shall 
be  with  a  flood  ;  and  unto  the  end  of 
the  war  which  is  a  decree  of  destruc 
tion.  (27)  And  he  shall  make  firm 
his  covenant  with  many,  for  one 
week,  and  a  dividing  of  the  week ; 
and  he  will  cause  sacrifice  and  obla 
tion  to  cease ;  and  over  the  wing  of 
abomination  [shall  be]  a  destroyer ; 
unto  the  consummation  of  the  decree 
it  shall  rest  upon  the  destroyer. 


VII.  Rosenmidler's  Version.  VIII.  De  Wette's  Version. 

(24)  Septuaginta  hebdomades  des-  (24)  @tcbcu^t(]  Siebeilbe  ftnb 
tinatae  sunt  tuo  populo,  tuaeque  sa- ;  befttllimt  liber  Deill  $olf  Utlb  liber 
crae  urbi,  ad  consummandum  pecca-  freilte  beilige  (StClbt,  bl$  ber  ^TCttel 
turn,  ad  obsignanda  delicta,  ad  expi-  ;  Dotlbrad)t,  Ullt)  bie  igimbeil  beftf* 
andam  culpam,  et  ad  inducendam  ge(t,  llllb  bie  <£d)ltft>  (jefitbnct,  1Mb 
aeternam  justitiam,  et  ad  obsignan- ;  ew(ge  @ered)tU}feU  l)erbcigefilt)rt, 
dam  visionemet  vaticinationem.atque  mtt)  @e|Td)t  llllb  ^rcpbct  bejTegelt, 
ad  unguendum  Sanctorum  Sanctissi-  \  unb  j^  WLttty\ii$*  qefdlbet 
mum.  (25)  Scies  igitur  et  intelliges,  wi^  (25)  stifle  a[f0  Unb  mcrfc  : 
ab  edito  mandato  de  reditu,  et  de  in-  ( t)om  3Jugqai1(,e  ^g  s^orte^  [ba^ 
stauranda  Hierosolyma  usque  ad  unc-  3eremi'a  #&$}  ^  Serufalcm 
turn  pnncipem,  fore  hebdomades  sep-  ^^  tywQt  uub  crbanet  mr, 
tern  et  sexagmta  duas,  quibus  redibi-  t)eu  ^  fa 
tur,  et  yici  mummentaque  mstaura-  ^  ^  ^ 
buntur ..Klquemdifficultatetemporum.  -  »  ^  fa^ 
Post  duas  autem  et  sexamta  heb-  fe  .  « 


det   populus    ducis    venturi,   eritque  «n?  ®*ab?n,afa   till   £luuv   v^ 
finis  ejus  subito,  et  usque   ad  finem  3**™.      (26 J    Ullb  Itad)  bell  JWCl 
belli  decretae  sunt  desolationes.  Con-  g^,  J*W    CWftntbOl    »trt>    em 
firmabit  autem  foedusmultis  per  unam  ^falbter  U>eggerafit,  llllb 
hebdomadam,  et  dimidia  hebdomada  ^  ^^bOllben,  ber 
sacrificium  fertumque  toilet,  alaeque  ^^^  ^^  ^trtDt  llllD 
detestandae  praeerit  vastator ;  atque  »«*    Wttm/*cn  ,bcid    ^°lf 
usque   ad    consummationem  eamque   glirjten,  n?elrf)er  tommt,  llllb  bej 
praecisam  super  devastatorem  effun-  ^nbe  [Wie]  III  gltttb,  linb  bl^  ^ 

detur.  Qntbc  $neg,  93efa)lup  Den  5L?er^ 

iviiilnngciu    (27)  Unb  er  bcfcftigt 
ben    25nnb    SSielen  ein   jSiebenb 
I  (ang,  nnb  voabrenb  ber  i^dlftc  be3 
|(2iebenb^  nnrb  er  @d)fad)topfet 
'  nab  6pei^epferctnjle{ten,  nnb  iiber 
;ber3innebe^  ^rdneld  irirb  ber 
2>ern)iijl:er  feijit,  nnb  ^ti?ar  bi^  bag 


nnb  Sefdjfnf  jid)  er^ 
igieget'itber  ben 


312  CHAP.  IX.  27. 

For  convenience'  sake  No.  I.  IT.  are  here  inserted.  No.  III.  IV.  speak 
for  themselves.  As  to  No.  II L,  the  author  of  this  version  plainly  was  per 
plexed  about  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew,  and  has  given  some  strange  turns 
to  the  sentiment,  even  in  vs.  24 — 26.  But  in  v.  27  we  are  entirely  lost. 
We  can  scarcely  trace  any  certain  resemblances.  The  clause  in  v.  20,  "  After 
seven  and  seventy  years,"  is  a  guess  that  the  time,  here  aimed  at  in  the 
Heb.  text,  is  the  era  of  the  Selucidae.  This  began  312  B.  C.,  and  the  sum 
of  the  numbers  named  in  the  version  is  189,  which  tallies  with  the  time 
when  Antiochus  Epiphanes  began  his  reign.  What  follows  doubtless  re 
lates  to  him,  but  it  is  such  a  confused  medley,  that  nothing  can  be  made  out 
of  it.  No  wonder  the  ancient  churches  were  discontented  with  such  a  version. 
I  say  such  a  version,  because  there  are,  in  many  parts  of  it  elsewhere, 
characteristics  of  a  similar  nature.  No.  IV.  is  certainly  a  great  improve 
ment  upon  the  Septuagint ;  but  even  this  shows  that  the  author  of  the  version 
was  at  times  quite  uncertain  in  his  own  mind,  about  the  meaning  of  the  He 
brew.  I  need  not  point  out  particulars,  as  the  reader  can  easily  find  them, 
and  judge  for  himself.  The  part  included  in  brackets  is  as  it  stands  in  the 
Romish  edition  of  Theodotion,  but  it  is  omittted  in  Bos'  edition  of  the  Sep 
tuagint.  It  is  palpably  another  version  of  v.  27,  which  was  copied  on  the 
margin,  and  through  carelessness  was  foisted  into  the  text,  by  the  copyist 
who  wrote  the  Ms.  used  in  the  Romish  edition.  Both  versions  show  in 
what  perplexity  the  authors  of  them  were.  No.  V.  shows  the  deep  ac 
quaintance  of  Jerome  with  the  Hebrew,  and  has  come  nearer  to  accuracy 
than  any  of  ancient  versions.  Of  the  Targums  of  Daniel,  we  know  nothing  ; 
not  even  whether  any  ever  existed. 

No.  VI.  deserves  some  special  notice.  The  author  of  this  plainly  had  a 
better  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  than  any  of  his  predecessors  in  translat 
ing,  (fl.  prob.  Cent.  II.)  ;  and  in  some  points  he  has  hit  nearer  the  mark 
than  even  Jerome.  The  Latin  translation  of  this  Syriac  Version  is  a  mi 
serable  affair,  and  no  dependence  can  be  placed  upon  it.  I  have  made  a 
new  and  literal  version,  because  it  would  be  useless,  or  nearly  so,  to  print 
it  in  Syriac.  But  this  version  deserves  much  more  attention  than  it  has 
yet  received.  Many  a  good  hint  may  be  got  from  it,  to  cast  light  on  the 
difficult  words  or  phrases  in  the  Hebrew.  The  author  was  well  grounded 
in  the  knowledge  of  that  language. 

As  to  No.  VII.  VIII.,  the  object  in  presenting  them  lies  upon  the  face  of 
the  thing.  Two  such  scholars  as  Rosenmueller  and  De  Wette  may  well 
excite  the  curiosity  of  the  interpreter,  to  know  how  they  understood  the  He 
brew  text,  in  the  passage  before  us.  Most  readers,  I  trust,  will  be  glad  of 
such  a  conspectus  as  that  which  is  here  submitted  to  their  examination. 

[It  has  already  been  said,  that  a  great  variety  of  interpretations  have  been  proposed, 
of  Dun.  9:  24 — 27.  The  reader  who  is  curious  to  know  how  much  and  what  has  been 
said,  and  what  endless  perplexity  hus  attended  all  attempts  to  explain  without  the 
aid  of  a  distinctive  philology,  is  remitted  for  information  to  the  following  \voiks,  as 
exhibiting  the  ablest  efforts  of  this  nature.  Some  few  of  them,  however,  have  been 
distinguished  by  philological  effort. 

Among  the  older  writers,  Vitrinya  stands  preeminent,  as  usual,  in  his  very  learned 
discussion  of  the  subject  in  Ohservatt.  Sac.  VI.  1 — 5.  He  is  exclusively  Mcssianir,  and 
is  the  store-house  from  which  Ilengstenberg  and  Hiivcrnick  have  drawn,  in  their  dis- 


.- u*Bu 

OF    TJJE 

DIVERSITY 

°^  -K 

CHAP.  X.    INTRODUCTION.  ^J>F(313 

cussions  of  the  matter  in  question.  Among  the  more  respectable  attempts  to  explain 
this  matter  may  be  reckoned  J.  D.  Michaelis  Versuch  liber  die  70  Wochen  Daniels, 
1771.  8.  Eichhorn,  Bibliothek,  B.  III.  s.  761  seq.,  has  suggested  many  good  hints, 
while  he  adopts  a  tortuous  method  of  reckoning  the  respective  classes  of  weeks. 
Bleek,  Theol.  Zeitschrift  von  Schleiermacher,  De  Wette,  etc.,  1819,  Heft.  3,  s.  171  seq. 
Berthholdt,  Comm.  zum  Buche  Daniel.  II.  Theil.  Hengstenberg,  Die  70  Wochen 
Daniels,  in  his  Christol.  Theil.  II.  s.  401  seq.  1831.  Havernick,  Comm.  uber  Daniel, 
in  loc.  1832.  Scholl,  Comm.  exeget.  de  70  hebdom.  Danielis,  1829.  Hitzig,  Recen 
sion  in  Theol.  Stud,  et  Krit.  1832.  s.  143  seq.  ROsch,  Die  70  Wochen  des  Daniel, 
ib.  Jahr  1835.  Lengerke,  Comm.  Uber  Dan.  in  loc.  As  distinguished  greatly  from  all 
the  preceding  efforts,  remain  to  be  noted,  J.  C  K.  Hoffman,  Die  70  Jahre  des  Jeremias, 
1836;  and  his  later  and  highly  important  work,  Weissagung  und  Erfiillung,  1S415 
Th.  I.  s.  296  seq.,  which  is  filled  indeed  with  mere  hints,  but  they  are  exceedingly  sig 
nificant,  and  are  the  result  of  much  thought  and  profound  study.  The  recent  exclu 
sively  Anti-messianic  interpreter  is  Wieseler,  Die  70  Wochen  und  die  63  Jahrwochen, 
1839,  a  book  pregnant  with  thought  and  interesting  matter,  and  giving  evidence  of 
great  acuteness  in  philology ;  but  exhibiting  some  inconclusive  reasoning,  and  a 
strong  leaning  to  preconceived  theory.  Substantial  progress  in  philology  has  been 
made  by  these  two  last  named  writers.  It  would  be  easy  to  subjoin  scores  of  other 
writers  ;  but  they  would  add  little  or  nothing  to  the  apparatus  of  the  reader  who  has  Of 
access  to  those  named  above.] 

[The  preceding  vision  was  seen  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede,  9:  1.  The 
one  now  before  us  is  dated  in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  which  would  make 
it  some  seventy-two  years  from  the  time  that  Daniel  was  carried  to  Babylon  by 
Nebuchadnezzar,  1:  1 — 3,  and  about  four  years  later  than  the  preceding  vision.  The 
vision  is  prefaced  by  a  narration  of  Daniel's  special  fasting  and  prayer,  for  the  space 
of  three  weeks,  vs.  1 — 3.  The  occasion  of  this  is  not  directly  and  explicitly  stated. 
But  we  may  gather  hints  from  the  book  of  Ezra,  which  will  give  some  probable  illus 
tration.  Soon  after  the  building  of  the  temple  was  commenced,  "  the  adversaries  of 
Judah  and  Benjamin"  began  their  opposition  to  it  by  active  measures.  During  all 
the  remainder  of  Cyrus'  reign,  and  even  down  to  that  of  Darius,  i.  e.  from  B.  C.  536 
down  to  519,  (Ezra  4:  4,  5.  6:  1 — 15),  opposition  was  continued.  If  Daniel  was  un 
certain  in  his  mind,  whether  the  D^aiS  D^SIS  of  9:  24  meant  seventy  weeks  of 
days  or  seventy  weeks  of  years,  (and  considering  the  ellipsis  in  this  case  ofd^tj  , 
we  may  easily  suppose  him  to  have  been  in  doubt  for  a  time),  then  must  he  have  felt 
greatly  perplexed  with  such  a  state  of  things  as  existed  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus' 
reign.  Nothing  of  consequence  had  yet  taken  place,  excepting  the  bare  return  of  a 
company  of  exiles  to  Palestine.  The  temple-building  was  at  a  stand.  The  city- 
building  must  have  been  in  a  very  embarrassed  and  perplexing  state.  If  Daniel  had 
hitherto  indulged  the  hope  that  only  seventy  weeks  of  days  were  appointed  for  the  re 
storation  of  the  city  and  sanctuary,  he  must  now  be  greatly  in  doubt  what  to  think. 
The  time  of  seventy  weeks  of  days  had  more  than  passed,  yea  double  that  time,  and 
yet  there  were  no  indications  of  successful  prc-gress  at  Jerusalem.  The  close  of  v.  1 
indicates  the  deliverance  which  the  mind  of  the  prophet  experienced,  by  the  new  reve 
lation  which  he  was  about  to  record.  It  also  contains  an  indication,  tacit  but  yet  intel 
ligible,  that  he  had  not  before  satisfactorily  understood  the  communication  made  to 
him  in  9:  24—27.  In  10:  12  is  an  intimation,  moreover,  of  the  fear  which  had  op- 

27 


314  CHAP.  X.  1. 

pressed  Daniel,  when  he  considered  the  then-present  state  of  the  holy  city  and  temple. 
The  events  which  are  disclosed  in  the  prophecy  that  follows,  show  that  one  could  not 
reasonably  suppose  them  all  to  happen  in  the  course  of  seventy  weeks  of  days;  the 
time  therefore  of  9:  24,  must  be  weeks  of  years. 

Daniel  had  fasted  and  prayed,  from  the  first  day  of  the  first  [Heb.]  month  until  the 
close  of  the  twenty-first,   10:  3.     Three  days  after  this,  viz.  on  the  twenty-fourth,  he 
was  on  the  banks  of  the  Tigris,  and  there  saw  his  last  and  very  instructive  vision.  10: 
4.    An  angel  appears  in  splendid  costume,  and  addresses  him  in  a  voice  like  that  of  a 
great  multitude,  vs.  5,  6.     To  Daniel  alone  was  this  heavenly  messenger  visible; 
but  his  attendants  were  stricken  with  great  fear  and  fled,  probably  because  of  some 
audible  and  preternatural  sound,  v.  7.     Daniel  remained  alone,  and  he  grew  pale 
with  terror,  and  sunk  down  in  great  weakness,  v.  8.     In  a  kind  of  trance,  while  on  the 
ground,  he  heard  the  angel  speaking  to  him,  who  came  near  and  partially  lifted  him 
up,  vs.  9,  10.    The  angel  then  addressed  to  him  words  of  great  kindness,  and  bade 
him  attend  carefully  to  what  he  was  about  to  communicate,  by  which  he  was  some 
what  revived,  even  so  as  to  stand  erect,  although  with  trembling,  v.  11.    He  assures 
Daniel,  that  his  prayers  had  been  heard,  and  his  solicitude  to  understand  more  fully 
what  had  been  addressed  to  him  on  a  former  occasion,  was  favorably  regarded,  v.  12. 
The  angel  discloses  a  reason  why  there  had  been  some  delay,  in  bringing  his  mes 
sage.     The  angel  of  the  Persian  kingdom  had  withstood  him  for  twenty-one  days, 
until  Michael  came  to  his  aid,  when  he  was  left  alone  to  exercise  his  good  influence 
over  the  Persian  dynasty.    [His  object  seems  to  have  been,  to  give  a  turn  to  the  Persian 
affairs  which  would  be  favorable  to  the  Hebrews],  v.  13.   The  next  verse  ( 14)  discloses 
the  special  object  of  the  angel's  mission  ;  which  was,  to  instruct  Daniel  what  would 
befal  his  people  at  a  future  period,  for  the  vision  had  respect  to  a  prolonged  period. 
When  this  was  mentioned,  Daniel  cast  down  his  eyes  to  the  earth,  and  remained  si 
lent,  v.  15.    In  this  plight,  an  angel  under  the  appearance  of  a  man  touched  his  lips, 
and  enabled  him  to  speak;  which  he  did  by  stating,  that  the  terror  caused  by  the 
vision  had  deprived  him  of  the  use  of  his  bodily  powers,  vs.  16,  17.    An  angel  in 
human  form  then  touched  him  again,  and  his  strength  was  somewhat  restored,  v.  18. 
He  bade  Daniel  not  to  fear,  for  he  was  greatly  beloved,  and  peace  would  be  given 
him  ;  after  which  Daniel  requested  him  to  proceed,  inasmuch  as  he  was  fully  revived} 
v.  19.     The  angel  begins  his  communication  by  asking  the  seer,  whether  he  knew  for 
what  purpose  he  had  come  ?     Taking  his  answer  for  granted,  (as  indeed  he  might,  if 
we  compare  v.  14),  the  angel  goes  on  to  say,  that  he  shall  return  [to  Persia]  in  order 
to  contend  with  the  prince  of  Persia ;  that  when  he  departs,  the  prince  of  Grecia  will 
come,  [when  he  abandons  the  Persian  court,  the  king  of  Greece,  Alexander,  will  come 
against  the  country],  v.  20.     What  is  written  in  the  book  of  truth  respecting  the  fu 
ture,  will  now  be  disclosed.    Only  the  angel  Michael  assists  him  against  his  antago 
nists  ;  —  but  this  same  Michael  is  the  special  guardian  of  the  Hebrews.] 


CHAPTER  X. 

(1)  Th  the  third  year  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  a  message  was  revealed  to  Daniel, 
whose  name  was  called  Belteshazzar;  the  message  was  truth,  and  the  warfare  great. 
And  he  understood  the  message,  for  understanding  was  given  to  him  in  the  pro 
phetic  vision. 


CHAP.  X.  1.  315 

In  1:  21  it  is  said,  that  Daniel  was,  i.  e.  continued,  remained,  until  the 
first  year  of  Cyrus ;  which  some  have  maintained  to  be  a  contradiction 
to  the  verse  before  us,  which  asserts  that  Daniel  was  living  and  active 
some  two  years  after  the  period  named  in  1:  21.  But  (as  above  ex 
plained  in  Comm.  on  1:  21)  I  understand  the  object  of  this  last-mentioned 
passage  to  be,  to  show  that  as  Daniel  saw  the  beginning  of  the  exile,  so 
he  also  lived  to  see  the  end  of  it;  which  end  came  about  in  the  first  year 
of  Cyrus'  reign.  As  the  object  of  that  passage  seems  not  to  be  to  state 
the  full  extent  of  Daniel's  life,  so  the  passage  before  us  is  no  contradic 
tion,  nor  even  a  discrepancy,  in  respect  to  1:  21.  The  third  year  of  Cy 
rus  was  B.  C.  534.  —  King  of  Persia  means  king  of  the  united  Medo- 
Persian  empire  ;  for  the  sacred  writers  reckon  the  dominion  of  Cyrus 
from  the  commencement  of  his  reign  as  son-in-law  and  heir  of  Darius 
the  Mede.  —  la*! ,  a  communication  or  message  ;  for  the  word  is  generic 
in  a  sense  like  to  that  of  these  English  words  ;  comp.  Isa.  2: 1.  —  nbro  has 
reference  to  a  supernatural  revelation.  —  Whose  name  was  called  jBelte- 
shazzar,  see  1:  7.  The  object  of  this  is  to  specify,  that  he  is  the  same 
Daniel  to  whom  the  preceding  portion  of  the  book  relates.  —  P^sj  is 
predicate  —  the  message  was  truth  —  and  is  put  first  for  the  sake  of  em 
phasis  ;  comp.  Rev.  22:  6.  21:  5.  19:  9,  as  to  the  assertion. —  sas ,  lit.  war 
fare,  tropically  (as  here),  trouble,  hardship,  severe  trial  with  suffering. 
A  reference  is  by  implication  here  made  to  the  contents  of  the  message 
about  to  be  imparted.  These  disclose  trials  very  severe,  and  much  (^1*5) 
suffering  to  the  Hebrew  nation.  —  And  he  understood  the  message  ;  comp. 
8:  27,  which  asserts  that  he  did  not  at  that  time  fully  comprehend  what 
had  then  been  said  to  him.  Comp.  also  10:  12,  which  appears  to  refer  to 
9:  24 — 27,  and  to  imply  the  like  sentiment.  The  present  message  is  so 
much  in  detail  and  so  particular,  that  the  prophet  ceased  to  doubt.  — 
Understanding  [of  the  message]  was  given  to  him  by  the  vision,  viz.  the 
vision  to  which  the  preceding  nbas  refers.  Hence  the  article  before  Ftfcp/a . 
What  he  means  to  say  is,  that  the  manner  of  the  vision  which  follows 
was  such,  that  he  attained  to  a  satisfactory  understanding  of  it  —  such  an 
understanding  as  he  had  not  had  in  respect  to  either  of  the  three  preced 
ing  visions  ;  see  7: 15,  28.  8: 27.  10: 12.  Lengerke  takes  -pa  and  nra  as 
Imperatives;  and  so  the  accent  might  seem  to  decide,  nra  having  a 
penult  accent,  §  71.  6.  But  I  apprehend  this  to  be  only  an  accidental 
case  of  accentuation.  The  verb  has  a  penult  accent,  because  of  the  im 
mediate  sequency  of  a  monosyllabic  word  which  takes  an  accent,  §  29. 
3.  b.  C.  B.  Michaelis  and  Lengerke,  (who  make  the  word  Imper.  on  the 
ground  of  the  accentuation),  have  both  failed  to  recognize  this.  Len 
gerke  says,  also,  that  "pa  must  be  in  Hiph.,  and  that  ri  praefix-formative 
is  dropped  by  aphaeresis.  But  this  cannot  well  be.  The  usual  Imper^ 


316  CHAP.  X.  2,3. 

Hiph.  is  lan,  and  the  apocopate  (made  by  aphaeresis)  would  be  ",2  ,  not 
"pa .  That  Kal  has  two  forms  in  the  Praeter.  ^a  and  "pa  ,  seems  clear, 
§  72.  1.  e.  g.  The  sense  of  the  passage  (as  I  understand  it)  I  have 
given  in  the  version  above.  Lengerke  says,  that  such  a  meaning  is  in 
compatible  with  12:  8.  But  I  understand  what  is  there  said  ("pax  Nbi), 
to  relate  only  to  what  is  said  of  the  resurrection  and  its  sequel  in  12: 
1 — 4.  The  reader  will  observe,  that  the  third  person  is  employed  by  the 
writer  in  this  verse,  after  which  he  goes  over  into  the  first.  This  is  the 
usual  method  ;  see  Isa.  1: 1  seq.  2: 1  seq.  Jer.  1: 1  seq.  Ezek.  1:  3,  4.  Hos. 
1:  1, 2,  (comp.  3:  1),  and  so  in  the  other  prophets,  comp.  §134.  3.  N.  3. 

(2)  In  those  days  I  Daniel  was  mourning  three  weeks  of  days. 

Those  days  belong  to  the  time  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz. 
during  the  third  year  of  Cyrus.  The  probable  occasion  of  Daniel's 
mourning  has  already  been  stated  in  the  introduction  to  this  chapter.  — 
Three  n^rn  D^sais  ,  lit.  three  days  besevened,  i.  e.  twenty-one  days.  The 
word  D^E£  is  here  added,  so  as  to  avoid  being  misunderstood ;  for  B^saeJ 
in  9:  24  means  year-iveeks,  i.  e.  years  is  implied  after  it,  as  being  the  ordi 
nary  measure  of  time.  But  to  show  that  the  case  is  different  here, 
fi^EH  is  employed,  and  put  in  the  Ace.  as  designating  time,  §  116.  2,  and 
for  the  adverbial  use,  see  §  116.  3.  Three  weeks'  fasting,  in  the  abso 
lute  and  highest  sense  of  the  word,  cannot  be  supposed  without  a  mirac 
ulous  interposition.  Does  the  next  verse  so  represent  the  fast,  as  to  make 
such  an  interposition  necessary  ? 

(3)  Pleasant  bread  I  ate  not,  and  neither  flesh  nor  wine  came  into  my  mouth, nor 
did  I  anoint  myself,  until  the  completion  of  three  weeks  of  days. 

ni^n  Dnb ,  lit.  bread  of  delights,  i.  e.  choice  bread,  such  as  was  fur 
nished  for  the  tables  of  the  wealthy  and  the  honorable.  The  implication 
of  course  is,  that  Daniel  sustained  himself  with  coarse  bread,  such  as  was 
eaten  by  the  lower  class  of  people.  But  as  to  flesh  and  wine,  which  were 
not  necessary  to  his  sustenance,  but  to  be  regarded  merely  in  the  light 
of  a  comfort  or  luxury,  he  did  not  at  all  partake  of  them.  Nor  did  he  re 
sort,  as  usual,  to  the  place  of  bathing  and  anointing.  The  7p&  here  is  Inf. 
abs.,  rendering  intense  the  expression,  viz.  I  did  not  at  all  anoint  myself. 
This  verb  is  never  used  for  ceremonial  anointing  to  office,  but  for  anoint 
ing  the  body  after  bathing.  Among  the  upper  classes,  oils  highly  per 
fumed  were  employed  for  this  purpose.  The  fasting  of  Daniel  was  ex 
tended  to  abstinence  from  every  convenience  and  luxury,  and  no  more 
than  a  bare  support  of  coarse  bread  was  admitted.  With  this,  however, 
he  could  easily  sustain  himself,  so  that  nothing  wonderful  as  to  the  length 
of  the  fast  need  be  supposed.  Why  it  was  three  weeks  rather  than  some 
other  period,  we  are  not  told.  But  the  last  week  of  this  period,  v.  4  (it 


CHAP.  X.  4—6.  317 

being  in  the  first  month),  would  include  the  passover  with  its  seven  days 
of  fasting.  The  light  in  which  the  number  three  was  regarded  by  the  He 
brews,  may  have  had  its  influence  in  regard  to  the  period,  which  was 
three  times  as  long  as  the  passover-fast.  At  all  events,  the  length  of  the 
fast  betokens  deep  humiliation. 

(4)  And  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  first  month,  I  was  near  by  the  great  river, 
that  is,  the  Hiddekel  [the  Tigris]. 

His  presence  on  the  banks  of  the  river  named,  is  to  be  regarded  here 
as  actual  or  physical,  and  not  merely  in  vision.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  or  in  the  manner  of  the  language,  which  re 
quires  us  to  give  any  other  than  a  literal  interpretation.  It  deserves 
remark,  that  the  angel  does  not  appear  to  him,  until  the  third  day  after 
his  fasting  was  ended.  In  the  sequel,  the  reason  of  his  delay  is  stated. 
For  ttHnb,  see  §  113.  2.  d.  The  first  month  is  reckoned  in  the  Hebrew 
manner. 

(5)  And  I  lifted  up  my  eyes,  and  behold  a  man  clothed  in  linen  garments,  and  his 
loins  girt  about  with  fine  gold  of  Uphaz. 

^nx  I»IK  ,  a  man,  lit.  one  man  ;  for  ^inx  in  the  sense  of  our  indefinite 
article  a,  see  Lex.  ins* ,  4.  The  expression  shows,  that  the  angel  assumed 
a  human  form,  in  addressing  the  prophet.  —  D^n ,  linen  or  cotton  vest 
ments.  Here  it  means  the  long  white  mantle  which  covered  the  whole 
person,  and  was  girt  around  the  waist,  in  order  to  adjust  and  render 
firm  its  position. —  tBix ,  here  and  Jer.  10: 9,  probably  the  same  as  "rsix , 
for  which  see  Lex.  The  T  and  1  are  sometimes  exchanged ;  see  Lex.  in  v. 
—  Fine  gold  of  Uphaz,  i.  e.  having  his  girdle  adorned  with  the  most 
precious  gold. 

(6)  And  his  body  was  like  the  topaz,  and  his  face  like  the  appearance  of  lightning, 
and  his  eyes  like  flaming  lamps,  and  his  arms  and  his  feet  were  like  the  appearance 
of  polished  brass  ;  and  as  to  his  voice,  his  words  were  like  the  shout  of  a  multitude. 

In  a  word,  he  appeared  in  dazzling  splendor  and  magnificence  through 
out.  ttTUT'iPD ,  first,  the  name  of  a  place  [now  Guadalquiver]  in  Spain  ; 
then,  the  name  of  a  yellowish  gem  found  there,  which  the  Greeks  called 
2£V<roJU#oft  and  recent  chemists  name  topaz.  The  resplendence  is  the 
main  point  of  the  comparison  here.  The  yellowish  hue  is  in  conformity 
with  the  color  of  the  oriental  skin.  —  His  visage  like  the  lightning,  and 
his  eyes  like  flaming  lamps,  is  exceedingly  vivid  description,  and  conveys 
the  mingled  idea  of  the  splendid  and  the  terrible  ;  com  p.  Rev.  1: 13 — 15, 
which  closely  resembles  the  present  passage.  The  splendor  of  the 
arms  and  feet  seems  to  be  the  result  of  the  ornaments  attached  to  them, 
which  were  exceedingly  lustrous ;  for  such  was  the  appearance  of  polished 

27* 


318  CHAP.  X.  7—9. 

brass  among  the  ancients.  —  •)••§  ,  lit.  eye,  but  also  look,  appearance. 
nEJn3  is  here  used  as  masc.  ;  so  in  Ezek.  1:7.  —  Like  the  shout  of  a 
great  multitude,  a  vivid  and  strong  conception.  John,  in  Apoc.  1:  15, 
"  His  voice  was  like  the  sound  of  many  waters"  i.  e.  like  the  roaring  of 
the  ocean-waves.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  which  is  the  most  vivid  and 
powerful  expression.  Comp.  also  Rev.  14:  2,  where  "loud  thunder"  is 
added.  In  all  respects,  as  to  majesty,  splendor,  and  power,  the  angel  ap 
pears  preeminent.  How  deep  the  impression  made  by  his  majestic 
appearance  and  costume  was,  the  sequel  serves  to  show. 

(7)  And  I  Daniel  alone  saw  the  vision  ;  and  the  men  who  were  with  me  saw  not 
the  vision,  but  great  terror  fell  upon  them,  and  in  secreting  themselves  they  fled  away. 

If  the  men  who  accompanied  Daniel  saw  not  the  vision,  perhaps  it  was 
not  visible  to  the  natural  physical  eye,  but  only  to  the  mental  eye  of  the 
prophet.  But  something  must  have  been  either  seen  or  heard,  in  order 
to  excite  so  much  terror.  It  may  be,  therefore,  that  the  sound  of  the 
voice  was  audible  by  Daniel's  attendants.  —  fi'T"'^  is  placed  before  its 
verb,  for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  —  xsnfta  in  secreting  themselves,  i.  e. 
either  they  fled  clandestinely,  so  as  to  evade  their  master's  notice,  or 
(more  probably)  the  idea  of  the  last  two  words  is  :  They  fled  away  in 
secreting  themselves,  i.  e.  in  finding,  or  in  order  to  find  a  hiding  place, 
they  fled  away.  The  verb  is  in  Niph.  Inf.,  the  li  prefix  going  over  into 
•i  because  the  following  guttural  excludes  the  Dagh.  forte. 

^8)  And  I  was  left  alone,  and  then  I  saw  that  great  vision,  and  there  was  no 
•strength  left  in  me,  and  my  glowing  ruddiness  was  changed  upon  me  to  a  marred 
state,  and  I  retained  no  strength. 


I'nsb  ,  lit.  in  my  loneliness  ;  ft&p.N;*  i  ,  and  then  I  saw,  §  152.  1.  B.  1.  — 
M^n  in  the  sense  of  grand,  sublime,  majestic.  —  "'Tim.  ,  lit.  and  my  splen 
dor,  means  the  natural  bright  and  glowing  color  of  the  skin  of  a  healthy 
person.  —  *by  ,  upon  me,  or  rather  perhaps  over  me,  i.  e.  throughout 
my  person,  for  not  the  cheek  only  grew  pale,  but  the  whole  body.  The 
sequel  shows  that  the  surface  of  his  person  became  marred  in  its  appear 
ance,  for  rnniaa  indicates  such  a  marring  as  sickness  or  death  brings  upon 
the  natural  color  of  the  skin.  —  I  retained  no  strength  indicates,  that  he 
fell  down  to  the  earth  as  lifeless  ;  'see  v.  9. 

(9)  And  I  heard  the  voice  of  his  words  ;  and  when  I  heard  the  voice  of  his  words, 
then  was  I  in  a  deep  sleep  upon  my  face,  and  my  face  was  on  the  ground. 

This  also  shows,  that  the  communication  with  the  prophet  was  more 
in  a  mental,  than  in  a  physical  way.  Otherwise  a  deep  sleep  would  have 
prevented  his  hearing  the  voice.  Comp.  8.  17.  Ezek.  1:  28.  3:  23.  Zech. 
4:  1.  Rev.  1,  17. 


CHAP.  X.  10—12.  319 

(10)  And  lo  !  a  hand  touched  me,  and  it  raised  me  upon  my  knees  and  the  palms 
of  my  hands. 

The  touch  of  the  hand  seems  to  have  partially  restored  sensation,  so  that 
he  could  perceive  it.  —  ^?2i3rn  ,  from  5*13  to  nod  or  vacillate,  so  that  the 
true  and  exact  meaning  here  seems  to  be  :  Placed  me  in  a  vacillating  state 
upon  my  hands  and  knees.  The  vacillation  doubtless  proceeded  from  ter 
ror  and  the  loss  of  strength.  —  niBai  ,  lit.  C]S  means  curve,  hollow  ; 
hence  applied  to  the  palms  of  the  hands,  and  the  soles  of  the  feet. 
There  is  no  necessity  of  finding  here  the  hand  of  another  angel,  different 
from  the  one  so  splendidly  clad,  as  described  in  vs.  5,  6.  Indeed,  since 
the  one  who  touched  Daniel,  and  raised  him  partly  up,  declares  in  v.  11, 
that  he  has  been  sent  to  make  communications  to  the  seer,  it  must  be 
one  and  the  same  personage. 

(11)  And  he  said  to  me:  Daniel,  a  man  greatly  beloved,  mark  well  the  words 
which  I  shall  speak  to  thee,  and  stand  upright  ;  for  now  am  I  sent  to  thee.    And  while 
he  was  uttering  these  words.  I  stood  up,  trembling. 


niian  ,  see  in  9:  23.  The  Imper.  form  ^ii  here  and  elsewhere  in  this 
book,  makes  against  the  position,  that  "pa  in  v.  1  is  Imper.  —  w  ,  it  is 
peculiar,  that  in  Kal  this  is  the  only  form  (Part.)  to  which  the  meaning 
speak  is  attached.  —  ^"3^5  ,  Ges.  renders  locus,  place  ;  well  enough  as  to 
the  general  sense  of  the  passage,  but  not  sufficiently  specific.  I  under 
stand  the  word  here  as  indicating  either  what  is  equivalent  to  our  English 
word  stand,  or  station,  or  else  the  means  or  instrument  of  standing,  viz. 
the  feet.  Such  a  tropical  use  is  by  no  means  impossible  or  improbable. 
The  reason  which  the  angel  gives  for  the  command  is,  that  he  is  about  to 
solve  the  doubts  or  difficulties  of  Daniel,  on  account  of  which  he  had 
been  fasting  and  praying.  In  obedience  to  his  requisition  Daniel  stood 
up  (ifi'ras)  ;  which  seems  to  explain  the  preceding  command.  Standfast 
in  thy  place  is  the  meaning  which  Lengerke  gives  to  the  command  ; 
which,  to  say  the  least,  is  doubtful  as  to  fast  orfrm.  What  I  deem  to  be 
the  shade  of  the  idea,  I  have  given  in  the  version  above.  —  ^Wa  ,  Hiph. 
intrans.  trembling.  See  the  like  meanings  in  Hiph.  §  52.  2.  JRemarks. 

(12)  And  he  said  unto  me:  Fear  not,  Daniel,  for  from  the  first  day  when  thou 
didst  apply  thy  mind  to  understand,  and  to  humble  thyself  before  God,  thy  words 
were  heard,  and  I  am  come  on  account  of  thy  words. 

There  is  an  intimation  in  "parib  ,  that  a  leading  part  of  Daniel's  so 
licitude  had  arisen,  from  his  doubts  as  to  the  exact  meaning  of  some 
things  in  the  previous  communications  made  to  him.  TjSsb  ,  in  its  pre 
dominant  sense,  this  noun  means  mind.  —  w'sspin!?  ,  Hithp.  reflex,  to 
humble  thyself.  —  Thy  words  mean,  the  words  uttered  in  his  prayers  be 
fore  God. 


320  CHAP.  X.  13,  14. 

(13)  And  the  prince  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia  stood  against  me,  twenty-one  days  ; 
and  lo  !  Michael,  one  of  the  chief  princes,  came  to  my  aid,  and  I  was  left  there  near 
the  kings  of  Persia. 

That  ito  here  designates  an  angel  of  some  sort,  and  not  a  king  of  Per 
sia,  seems  to  be  clear  from  v.  21.  ornto  bao'vo,  Michael  your  prince,  i.  e. 
your  guardian  angel.  Whether  the  angel  in  question  was  good  or  bad, 
has  been  disputed.  That  the  heathen  nations,  as  such,  should  have 
guardian  angels  assigned  them  who  were  good,  seems  hardly  to  com 
port  with  the  Hebrew  views  of  their  character  and  desert.  Yet  that 
good  angels  might  receive  commission  to  watch  over  their  concerns  in 
some  general  way,  is  sufficiently  in  accordance  with  the  dispensations  of 
Him,  "  who  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  send- 
eth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust."  The  only  serious  difficulty  is, 
that  of  contest  between  the  guardian-angel  of  the  Jews  and  that  of  Per 
sia.  Such,  it  would  seem,  must  have  taken  place  ;  for  when  the  com 
municating  angel  says,  that  u  he  was  left  near  the  kings  of  Persia,"  the 
implication  of  course  is,  that  the  victory  was  accorded  to  him,  for  the 
Persian  nia  had  withdrawn.  —  In  the  phrase  kings  of  Persia,  the  plural 
number  appears  to  be  used  in  order  to  designate  collectively  the  supreme 
dynasty  of  that  country.  When  Lengerke  asserts,  that  the  idea  of 
guardian-angels  was  borrowed  from  Parsism  and  Zoroaster,  one  cannot 
but  feel  prompted  to  ask  :  Whether  the  Hebrews,  specially  the  pious, 
would  be  likely  to  borrow  from  such  a  source  ?  And  then,  secondly, 
Whether  Josh.  5:  13.  Ex.  23:  20,  where  the  same  idea  is  plain,  were  in 
his  view  written  after  the  times  of  Zoroaster  ?  ^fst?  ,  lit.  before  me  ;  but 
the  particle  has  sometimes  an  adversative  sense,  and  then  may  be  trans 
lated  against.  It  would  seem  that  the  narrator  was  one  of  the  guardian- 
angels  of  the  Jews,  who  had  been  striving  to  procure  favorable  measures 
for  them  on  the  part  of  the  Persian  government.  There  is  a  plain  inti 
mation,  in  the  phrase  Michael  one  of  the  chief  princes,  of  different  orders 
of  angels.  This  idea,  however,  is  not  often  brought  to  view  in  the  O. 
Test.  ;  but  in  the  New  it  is  somewhat  familiar,  Eph.  3:  10.  1  Thess.  4: 
16.  Jude  v.  9.  Rev.  1:  4.  8:  2.  12:  7.  The  very  name  "ito  tacitly  con 
veys  the  same  idea. 

(14)  And  I  have  come  to  make  thee  know  what  shall  happen  to  thy  people  in 
later  times  ;  for  the  vision  is  yet  for  some  time. 


has  reference  to  the  same  word  in  v.  12.  —  «TJP^  from 
with  the  vowel  points  of  its  equivalent  fiO|^  ,  see  §  74.  Note  22.  b.  Here 
it  is  followed  by  a  b  ;  but  usually  it  subjoins  the  simple  Ace.  of  person. 
nnsa  is  not  necessarily  restricted  to  the  latter  or  final  portion 


CHAP.  X.  15—17.  321 

of  time  before  the  end  of  the  world,  but  it  may  mean  the  latter  part  of 
any  period  particularly  in  the  mind  of  the  speaker,  specially  when  this 
can  be  understood  by  those  who  are  addressed.  Here  it  evidently  means, 
the  latter  part  of  the  period  which  precedes  the  coming  of  the  Messiah; 
for  so  the  sequel  of  the  vision  shows  it  to  mean.  Indeed,  the  speaker 
himself  explains  his  own  declaration,  by  saying  that  the  vision  is  tswV 
lit.  for  days,  i.  e.  for  a  considerably  long  and  undefined  period. 

(15)  And  while  he  was  speaking  with  me  after  the  tenor  of  these  words,  I  placed 
my  face  on  the  ground,  and  was  silent. 

D^rns  shows  that  Daniel  does  not  repeat  verbatim,  but  only  for  sub 
stance,  the  words  of  the  angel.  —  ftS"ix  ,  with  ft-  ,  local,  which  shows  that 
the  word  is  in  the  adverbial  Ace.  —  "•Frabxa,  Niph.,  differs  slightly  from 
Kal,  in  that  it  is  reflexive  =  I  kept  myself  silent. 

(16)  And  lo  !  one  like  the  sons  of  men  touched  my  lips  ;  and  I  opened  my  mouth, 
and  spake,  and  said  to  him  who  stood  before  me  :  My  lord,  by  the  vision  my  comeli 
ness  upon  me  is  changed,  and  I  retain  no  strength. 


s  implies  before  it  some  one  who  is  the  object  of  comparison  ; 
but  since  no  Nom.  or  subject  is  expressed,  the  indefinite  Nom.  n^x  ,  one, 
a  man,  i.  e.  in  appearance  a  man,  is  to  be  supplied.  One  in  human 
form  is  the  plain  meaning  of  the  whole  phrase.  —  Touched  my  lips,  i.  e. 
in  order  that  he  might  speak,  for  he  had  just  said,  that  previous  to  this 
he  remained  dumb.  The  effect  was  immediate.  The  power  of  speech 
was  restored;  and  his  first  words  apologize  for  his  continued  silence, 
which  he  thought  might  seem  to  betoken  a  want  of  respect  or  comity.  —  - 
^^z  I  feel  constrained  to  interpret  differently  from  most  critics.  It  is 
neither  terrors  (Leng.  Maurer),  nor  pains,  distresses  (Ges.  al.).  Ety 
mology  forbids  the  first,  and  the  nature  of  the  passage  the  second  mean 
ing.  Terror  is  very  different  from  dolores.  The  verb  *vis  means,  among 
other  things,  to  form,  fashion,  etc.  ;  and  from  this  comes  "vs  idol,  and 
also  form,  Ps.  49:  15.  I  take  •n^x  ,  therefore,  in  a  sense  like  that  which 
"'"Tin  bears,  in  v.  8  above.  It  is  an  easy  transition  from  form  to  comeli 
ness  ;  just  as  the  Latin  forma  designates  both  ideas.  *nnn  marks  the 
shining  appearance  of  the  skin  in  a  healthy  person,  in  v.  8  ;  and  ^S 
here  marks  the  simple  idea  of  comeliness  or  fair  appearance.  As  to  the 
plur.  form  of  the  noun,  see  §  106.  2.  a.,  where  many  parallels  will  be 
found.  For  1^3  ,  see  under  v.  8  above. 

(17)  And  how  shall  the  servant  of  this  my  lord  speak  with  this  my  lord  ?     And  as 
for  me  —  at  present  no  strength  remaineth  in  me,  nor  is  there  any  breath  left  in  me. 

The  servant  of  my  lord  =  I.     This  is  the  usual  mode  of  address  among 


322  CHAP.  X.  18—20. 

the  Hebrews,  in  all  cases  where  an  inferior  addresses  an  acknowledged 
superior.  —  "rpri  =  Tpx  ,  the  usual  Heb.  form.  The  first  form  Chalda- 
izes.  —  bav*,  Hoph.  lit.  be  made  able,  become  able,  which  is  equivalent  to 
our  simple  can  or  be  able.  —  fit  is  a  demonstrative  and  intensive  =  this 
here,  i.  e.  how  can  I  address  such  a  personage  as  now  stands  before  me  ? 
—  ^3x3  ,  Norn.  abs.  —  ftF}?«  >  lit*  from  this  very  time,  viz.  from  the  time 
when  the  angel  appeared,  and  addressed  himself  to  Daniel,  he  had  been 
in  a  kind  of  swoon,  and  incapable  of  employing  his  bodily  organs  to  any 
effectual  purpose.  I  have  given  the  idea  in  our  usual  idiom,  in  the  ver 
sion. 

(18)  And  one  having  the  appearance  of  a  man  again  touched  me,  and  he  strength 
ened  me. 


*3  ,  lit.  and  he  added,  shows  that  the  same  personage  repeated  the 
touch,  who  had  first  given  it,  as  related  in  v.  16.  In  the  first  case,  the 
power  of  speech  was  restored  ;  in  the  second,  the  strength  of  the  whole 
frame.  For  the  idiom  of  the  verbs  ya*3  C]O*n  ,  see  §  139.  3.  sa";  from  SM  . 

(19)  And  he  said:  Fear  not,  O  man  greatly  beloved  ;  it  will  be  well  for  thee;  be 
of  good  courage  !  And  while  he  was  speaking  with  me,  I  felt  myself  strengthened, 
and  said  :  Let  my  lord  speak,  for  thou  hast  strengthened  me. 


tf  is  often  employed  as  a  mere  form  of  greeting,  like  salus  tibi  ! 
The  phrase  might  here  be  regarded  as  optative,  but  is  more  energetic 
when  rendered  as  the  Indicative.  —  £tm  ptn  ,  take  good  courage,  or  be 
very  strong!  The  repetition  marks  intensity  of  expression.  The  Hiph. 
•top-rnrn  has  a  shade  of  the  reflexive  in  it,  which  I  have  endeavored 
to  express  in  the  translation. 

(20)  And  he  said  :  Dost  thou  know  why  I  have  come  to  thee  ?  And  now  I  must 
return,  in  order  to  contend  with  the  prince  of  Persia;  and  I  shall  depart,  and  lo  !  the 
prince  of  Greece  will  come  ; 

The  question  asked  in  the  first  part  of  the  verse,  seems  rather  de 
signed  to  call  attention,  than  to  make  inquiry.  In  v.  14  is  a  declaration 
of  the  purpose  of  the  angel  in  coming.  What  follows  shows,  that  the 
prince  of  Persia  (guardian-angel),  although  he  had  departed  when  Mi 
chael  came  to  the  aid  of  the  speaker,  would  return  and  resume  his  former 
course,  or  had  already  returned.  The  guardian  of  the  Jews,  therefore, 
goes  back  to  Persia,  in  order  to  prevent  the  effects  of  his  influence.  — 
NSfp  ,  when  coupled  as  here  with  N3  ,  means  to  depart,  while  N3  in  such 
a  position  means  to  come,  accedere,  in(Q%8G&at.  But  from  what  place 
does  the  narrator  expect  to  depart  ?  And  does  the  prince  of  Grecia  de 
sign  to  come,  arrive,  at  the  same  place  ?  Questions  somewhat  difficult  to 


CHAP.  X.  21.  323 

answer.  From  the  last  clause  of  v.  21,  we  may  conclude,  that  prince  of 
Persia  and  of  Greece  means  guardian  or  superintending  angel.  To  this 
conclusion  the  tenor  of  the  discourse  would  also  lead.  Guided  by  this, 
we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  the  angel  means  to  say,  that  sometime 
after  his  return  to  Persia  to  contend  there  for  the  interests  of  the  He 
brews,  he  will  again  leave  that  country,  that  the  prince  of  Greece  may 
seek  and  obtain  a  preeminence  there  for  Grecian  rule.  Against  the  in 
clination  of  the  Persian  court  to  treat  the  Jews  with  neglect,  he  has  first 
to  strive,  and  when  Grecian  power  usurps  the  place  of  the  Persian,  he 
has  the  like  difficulty  to  overcome.  Hence  he  speaks,  in  the  next  verse, 
of  Michael's  aiding  him  n|i<~b?  against  these,  viz.  against  the  princes  of 
Persia  and  Greece.  I  do  not  see  how  the  text  will  well  bear  any  other 
construction.  That  going  and  coming  are  used  here  in  a  military  sense, 
i.  e.  indicate  mutual  strife  between  the  two  parties,  is  assumed  by  Hav. 
and  Leng. ;  but  this  is  not  strictly  the  case.  Going  away  (XS'T')  denotes 
the  departure  from,  and  relinquishment  of,  the  Persian  court,  giving  place 
to  Grecian  rule.  The  coming  of  Grecian  rule,  as  connected  with  what 
is  related  in  the  following  verse,  indicates  that  there  would  be  a  hostile 
bearing  toward  the  Jews,  so  that  the  guardian  angel  of  the  Hebrews 
must  needs  be  strengthened  by  Michael  fi^X'b? ,  i.  e.  against  both  coun 
tries  or  sovereignties.  To  such  a  view  as  is  here  given,  Hoffman  gives 
his  assent,  (Weissag.  etc.  s.  312). 

(21)  (But  I  will  tell  thee  what  is  written  in  the  book  of  truth),  and  there  is  no 
one  who  putteth  forth  his  strength  with  me  against  those,  except  Michael  your  prince. 

The  first  clause  I  have  put  in  parenthesis,  because  it  is  plainly  thrown 
in  so  as  to  interrupt  the  regular  train  of  thought.  When  the  speaker 
had  intimated,  that  the  princes  of  Persia  and  Greece  would  be  hostile  to 
the  Jews,  and  thus  excited  an  alarm  in  the  feelings  of  the  hearer,  he  em 
ployed  means  to  quiet  this  by  telling  him,  that  whatever  of  suffering  or 
of  deliverance  awaits  the  Jews,  it  amounts  only  to  so  much  as  heaven  had 
wisely  decreed,  and  cannot  pass  these  bounds.  —  wd'n  is  a  later  Heb. 
word,  taken  from  the  Chaldee,  instead  of  the  more  ancient  nirs .  — 
Book  of  truth  is  the  book  of  God's  decrees,  the  book  which  contains  what 
will  truly  come  to  pass  ;  comp.  the  like  in  Deut.  32:  34.  Mai.  3:  16.  Ps. 
139:  16.  Rev.  5:  1.  This  is  different  from  the  book  of  life,  which  is  so 
frequently  mentioned ;  for  this  is  so  named  by  allusion  to  the  register  of 
the  names  of  the  living  in  a  city  or  town;  but  the  book  of  truth  is  the 
book  which  records  what  is  or  will  be  true,  i.  e.  verified.  —  ^nx  'fXl ,  and 
there  is  no  one,  connects  with  xa  at  the  close  of  v.  20.  The  angel  means 
to  say,  that  in  the  successive  aggressions  upon  the  Jews  by  the  Persian 


324  CHAP.  X.  21. 

and  Grecian  dynasties,  he  has  no  one  to  aid  him  but  the  guardian  Mi 
chael.  The  intimation  seems  to  be,  that  without  more  helpers  not  a  little 
of  suffering  and  trial  must  be  expected,  and  thus  to  prepare  Daniel  for 
the  disclosures  of  the  sequel.  —  pjnrra ,  to  put  forth  or  show  one's  strength. 
•*— F&x-bs,  against  those,  viz.  those  princes  of  Persia  and  Grecia. — 
B^to ,  your  prince,  can  mean  nothing  more  nor  less  here,  than  your  lead- 


[It  is  common  for  interpreters  to  assume  here,  that  the  angel  Gabriel 
was  the  one  who  appeared  to  Daniel,  and  made  communications  on  the  oc 
casion  before  us.  Analogy  from  a  comparison  of  Dan.  8:  16.  9:  21,  where 
he  is  named,  might  naturally  lead  to  such  an  opinion ;  which  might  also  be 
strengthened  by  Luke  1:  19.  The  apocryphal  books,  both  of  the  O.  Test, 
and  of  the  New,  frequently  name  this  angel,  and  also  many  others  ;  special 
ly  does  the  book  of  Enoch  abound  in  the  names  of  angels.  But  still,  the 
opinion  about  Gabriel  in  the  present  case  must  be  conjectural ;  for  there 
is  no  name  assigned  to  the  angel-communicator,  in  chap.  x.  xi. 

The  question  :  How  much  of  the  representation  of  chap.  x.  is  costume, 
and  what  is  historical  reality  ?  is  more  difficult  than  one  might  at  first  sup 
pose.  If  the  princes  of  Persia  and  Grecia  be  good  angels,  how,  it  is  asked, 
'  can  contention  arise  between  them  and  the  guardians  of  the  Jews  ?  Each 
would  bow  in  submission  to  the  divine  will,  and  so,  when  that  was  known, 
there  could  be  no  differences  of  opinion.'  But  angels  are  not  omniscient; 
and  a  good  being,  with  limited  faculties,  who  is  set  to  watch  over  a  particu 
lar  king  or  country,  may  very  naturally  contract  some  partiality  for  the 
object  of  his  attention,  and  may  not  always  see  clearly  what  his  duty  is. 
In  a  case  of  this  kind,  it  is  easy  to  see,  that  something  like  an  opposition 
to  another  good  being  may  arise,  who  is  commissioned  to  interfere  with  the 
object  of  guardianship.  Somewhat  in  this  light,  I  think,  we  must  regard 
the  narration  in  the  present  chapter,  provided  we  consider  it  as  based  on 
simple  historical  facts. 

'  But  may  not  the  whole  be  in  the  way  of  allegorical  representation,  i.  e. 
so  as  to  represent  the  activity  of  the  enemies  of  the  Jews,  and  the  stumb 
ling-blocks  which  they  threw  in  the  way  of  those  who  had  returned  from 
exile ;  and  also  the  opposition  of  the  Grecian  kings  of  Syria  and  Egypt, 
after  the  death  of  Alexander  ?  In  such  a  case,  guardian-angels  of  the 
holy  land  would  represent  the  kind  care  which  heaven  bestowed  upon  the 
Hebrews  ;  and  the  opposing  princes  of  Persia  and  Grecia  would  indicate 
the  counsel  unfriendly  to  the  Jews,  which  those  dynasties  were  inclined  to 
follow.' 

That  it  is  possible  to  regard  the  whole  representation  in  this  light,  salva 
fide  et  salva  ecclesia,  I  would  not  deny  ;  but  the  angelology  of  the  Scriptures 
prevents  me  from  admitting  this.  I  feel  the  difficulty  presented  by  an 
account  of  contest  between  good  angels ;  and  specially  the  difficulty  of  sup 
posing  that  these  good  beings  would  excite  the  Persian  and  Grecian  chiefs 
against  the  Hebrew  nation.  But  is  it  the  design  of  the  writer  to  commu 
nicate  any  thing  more,  than  the  general  idea  of  the  angel-guardianship  of 


CHAP.  XL  INTRODUCTION.  325 

nations,  and  of  that  zeal  for  their  respective  interests,  which  springs  from 
a  feeling  that  is  natural  to  such  a  relation  ?  If  he  designs  more  than  this, 
we  are  at  least  left  in  the  dark,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  his  views  can 
be  reconciled  with  the  character  of  angels,  as  beings  perfectly  holy  and 
obedient  to  the  will  of  God,  and  also  beings  of  superior,  although  not  of 
perfect,  knowledge.  The  Apocalypse  is  through  and  through  of  the  same 
tenor,  in  regard  to  angels  and  their  offices,  as  the  present  book.] 


CHAPTER  XL 

[This  chapter  should  not  have  been  separated  from  the  preceding  one ;  for  it  is  a 
mere  continuance  of  the  address  to  Daniel,  which  was  begun  in  the  close  of  that  chap 
ter.  V.  1  informs  him,  that  the  angel-narrator,  now  engaged  in  hehalf  of  the  He 
brews,  had  for  some  time  before,  at  the  Medo-Persian  court,  been  engaged  in  like 
manner  with  Darius  the  Mede.  He  then  goes  on  to  sketch  some  of  the  events  of  the 
Persian  dynasty,  the  invasion  of  Greece  by  Xerxes;  the  spirit  of  hostility  which  will 
be  roused  up  by  this ;  the  rise  and  fall  of  Alexander  the  Great ;  and  the  subsequent 
division  of  his  broken  empire  into  four  dynasties,  vs.  2 — 4.  After  this,  the  dynasties 
of  Egypt  and  Syria  are  selected,  doubtless  because  they  are  the  only  ones  with  which 
the  Jews  were  to  be  concerned.  The  mutual  alliances,  attacks,  and  defences,  of  the 
kings  of  these  countries,  are  next  detailed  with  almost  historical  minuteness,  vs.  5 
— 20.  We  come  next  upon  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  whose  history  (as  we  may  almost 
name  it)  occupies  the  rest  of  the  chapter.  It  is  a  prophetic  representation  so  ample 
and  particular,  as  to  be  without  a  parallel  in  all  the  Scriptures.  Something  in  the 
aspect  of  the  times,  or  in  the  feelings  and  views  of  the  Jewish  people,  was  probably  the 
immediate  occasion  of  this.  The  expectation  of  no  more  trial  and  suffering  may  have 
been  too  confident  among  the  Hebrews,  and  have  needed  a  check.  Or  we  may  sup 
pose  another  ground :  Forewarned,  forearmed.  But  whatever  was  the  cause  of  the 
peculiar  form  of  the  prediction  before  us,  there  can  be  but  one  view  as  to  its  actual 
character.  As  has  already  been  said,  Porphyry  in  ancient  times,  and  not  a  few  crit 
ics  in  recent  times,  have  strenously  asserted  that  it  was  written  post  eventum,  and  is 
therefore  nothing  more  than  real  history.  The  assertion  is  grounded  mainly  on  its 
historical  minuteness;  but  partly  (by  the  new  school  of  criticism)  on  the  alleged  im 
possibility  of  a  miricle.  A  real  prediction,  so  minute  and  circumstantial,  must  of 
course  be  the  result  of  a  miraculous  interposition ;  and  the  a  priori  assumption  is, 
that  a  miracle  is  impossible.  Therefore  the  author  of  the  book  of  Daniel  must  have 
written  post  eventum, 

But  the  assumption  in  this  case  is  too  great,  reasonably  to  claim  assent  on  the  part 
of  the  sober-minded ;  and  the  critical  history  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  as  also  the  inter 
nal  evidence  of  the  book  itself,  throw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  supposing  a  very  late 
composition  that  seem  to  be  insuperable.  But  this  is  not  the  place  to  pursue  the  il 
lustration  and  confirmation  of  these  suggestions.  The  matter,  however,  must  neces 
sarily  be  investigated,  in  a  critical  introduction  to  the  book.] 

28 


326  CHAP.  XL  1,  2. 

( 1 )  Moreover,  during  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede,  I  stood  to  strengthen  and 
confirm  him. 

• 

Lit.  *  And  as  to  me,  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede.  my  standing 
was  to  strengthen'  etc.'  the  ^axi  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  shows  how 
closely  the  present  chapter  stands  connected  with  chap.  x.  I  have  ren 
dered  ^B5  stood,  for  we  cannot  possibly  imitate  the  Heb.  Infin.  with  a 
suffix,  in  our  language,  but  are  compelled  to  choose  a  definite  verb. 
Forms  like  the  present  are  by  no  means  unfrequent  in  Heb. :  e.  g.  I'rT^fi , 
Is.  11:  3,  the  exact  literal  version  of  which  would  be  the  to  delight  of  him, 
which  we  cannot  tolerate,  but  must  simply  say,  he  delights  ;  so  Job  9: 
27,  i"i'2X  ax,  if  the  to  say  of  me,  the  same  as  if  I  say.  Hence  "-ax  .  .  . 
17733  /.  .  .  stood.  But  I'ras  is  followed  by  >  before  the  object  to  be  ac 
complished  by  his  standing,  in  which  case  the  idiom  makes  it  to  mean 
the  offering  of  aid  or  assistance.  In  the  same  way  is  b  n^ip  employed  in 
Ps.  94:  16.  —  ib,  him  ....  whom?  Darius  or  Michael?  The  reader 
most  naturally  refers  the  aid  to  Darius ;  and  so  some  of  the  commenta 
tors.  But  this  will  hardly  bear  the  test  of  examination.  The  angel  had 
just  declared,  that  Michael  was  to  him  a  P;[nn?a ,  when  he  went  to  Per 
sia;  and  now  he  says,  that  on  a  former  occasion,  under  the  reign  of 
Darius,  he  then  in  like  manner  helped  Michael.  Mutual  aid,  then,  as 
it  would  seem,  had  been  given  respectively  when  needed.  Havernick 
thinks  such  an  idea  to  be  incongruous.  But  if  angels  are  beings  of  limi 
ted  powers  and  capacities,  I  do  not  see  what  incongruity  there  is  in  these 
declarations  as  above  explained. 

(2)  And   now  I  will  tell  thee  what  is  true.     Behold  !  three  kings  of  Persia  shall 
yet  stand  up,  and  the  fourth  shall  he  abundantly  rich  above  all ;  and  when  he  shall 
grow  strong  by  his  riches,  he  will  rouse  up  all  —  even  the  kingdom  of  Greece. 

The  hint  given  in  the  parenthesis  of  10:  21  ("  written  in  the  book  of 
of  truth"),  is  here  repeated  as  a  preface  to  the  prediction  which  he  is 
about  to  utter,  nrx  (apoc.  of  roES*  ,  §  19.  2.  b.  Note  1),  truth,  may  omit 
the  article  by  virtue  of  its  being  abstract  and  of  a  somewhat  generic  na 
ture  ;  for  it  is  equivalent  here  to  the  phrase,  that  which  is  true.  Plainly 
the  meaning  is  not  all  truth,  which  would  demand  the  article  ;  nor  truth 
in  opposition  simply  to  falsehood,  which  also  would  take  the  article  ;  but 
merely  the  positive  idea  that  what  he  communicates  is  true,  i.  e.  belongs 
to  truth.  —  lis ,  yet,  so  qualifies  the  clause  as  to  make  it  mean,  that  three 
kings  more  besides  (Ti$,  yet)  the  one  then  in  power  (Cyrus),  should 
rise  up,  before  a  fourth  would  invade  the  country  of  Greece,  and  thus 
sow  the  seeds  of  destruction  to  the  Persian  dynasty.  But  how  shall  we 
count  the  three  ?  Very  diversely  have  they  been  reckoned.  E.  g.  Cy- 


CHAP.  XL  2.  327 

rus,  Cambyses,  Pseudo-smerdis,  (so  Polychronius)  ;  Cyrus,  Cambyses, 
Darius  Hystaspis,  (C.  B.  Mich.)  ;  Cyrus,  Darius,  Xerxes,  (Hitzig).  I 
cannot  see  room  for  doubt.  It  is  certain  that  the  fourth  is  Xerxes  who 
invaded  Greece ;  and  the  lis  makes  it  certain,  that  Cyrus  is  excluded. 
Of  course  we  have  the  intermediate  kings ;  and  these  are  Cambyses, 
Pseudo-smerdis,  and  Darius  Hystaspis.  Lengerke  and  Maurer  main 
tain  that  ^ann  means  the  fourth  including  the  then  reigning  king  (Cy 
rus),  so  that  the  last  of  three  yet  to  come,  would  be  the  fourth  here 
adverted  to.  I  see  no  good  reason  for  this,  in  the  appeal  which  they 
make  to  the  article.  Lengerke  says,  that  if  the  fourth  after  Cyrus  be 
meant,  the  article  must  be  omitted  ;  which  Maurer  approves.  I  regard 
the  case  in  quite  a  different  light.  After  saying  that  three  kings  would 
arise,  whose  history  he  wholly  passes  by,  he  comes  to  another  in  dis 
tinction  from  them,  a  part  of  whose  history  he  gives.  The  distinction  in 
tended,  and  the  emphasis  demanded,  would  either  of  them  call  the  article 
io  its  aid.  It  is  even  not  uncommon  in  respect  to  ordinals,  to  append  the 
article  to  them  when  the  noun  connected  with  them  omits  it ;  e.  g. 
•^TfiTSii  oii,  Gen.  1:31.  Whenever  the  ordinal  is  to  be  specially  distin 
guished  from  other  preceding  things,  it  follows  of  course  that  the  article 
is  congruous.  The  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  *1<"13"!^ ,  in  the  present 
case,  is  the  one  that  next  follows  after  the  three.  So  Jerome,  Theodo- 
ret,  Bertholdt,  Rosenmuller,  Havernick,  and  others.  Besides,  this  accu 
rately  agrees  with  historical  facts.  If  Pseudo-sraerdis  is  to  be  left  out, 
because  he  was  a  usurper,  and  had  a  short  reign  —  what  was  Darius 
but  a  usurper  ?  The  article  therefore  seems  to  me  quite  in  place,  and 
we  need  seek  no  strained  exposition,  since  history  so  well  supports  the 
most  obvious  exegesis. 

He  shall  be  abundantly  rich.  The  fame  of  Xerxes'  wealth  is  well  known. 
Darius  his  father,  a  great  statesman  and  conqueror,  mostly  acquired  it 
for  him.  See  in  Herod.  III.  96.  VII.  27—29.  Justin  II.  10.  Diod.  Sic. 
XL  3.  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  XXIII.  10.  Ael.  XIII.  3.  —  Vsa  above  all,  a 
comparative  after  biia .  —  In  ir,£m3  there  is  an  indication  of  time  by 
means  of  the  3 ,  when  he  is  strengthened.  Lengerke  refers  the  word  to 
Xerxes'  state  of  mind,  when  he  encourages  or  props  up  himself.  To  me 
the  obvious  meaning  seems  to  be, '  when  he  increases  or  makes  strong 
his  power,  by  riches  which  can  call  great  armies  into  the  field ;'  for 
"  money  is  the  sinewy  of  war."  —  ™?2  simply  by  his  riches.  —  T^, 
Imperf.  Hiph.  of  iw ,  he  will  rouse  up,  excite,  provoke,  viz.  by  attacking 
and  injuring,  as  Xerxes  did.  —  V3ii,  the  whole,  TO  nav,  equivalent  to  the 
whole  world,  i.  e.  all  the  countries  around  him ;  and  so,  in  this  sense  of 
universality,  the  article  is  demanded,  as  in  Greek.  —  Such  hyperbole  is 


328  CHAP.  XL  3,  4. 

common  in  describing  extensive  dominion  ;  comp.  Dan.  2:  38,  39.  4:  1, 
22.  6:  25.  8:  5.  —  -j^n  ntobia  nx  is  in  apposition  with  Van  ,  and  specifies 
the  leading  country  against  which  the  forces  of  Xerxes  would  be  directed. 
Because  only  four  kings  of  Persia  are  here  adverted  to,  Lengerke  con 
cludes  that  the  writer  knew  of  no  more,  and  therefore  regarded  Xerxes 
as  the  end  of  the  Persian  series  or  dynasty,  inasmuch  as  he  has  placed 
him  in  contiguity  with  Alexander  the  Great  ;  see  v.  3.  This  would  ill 
agree,  however,  with  the  minute  and  extensive  knowledge  of  history  dis 
played  in  the  remainder  of  the  chapter.  Besides,  who  does  not  at  once 
see,  that  the  plan  of  the  book  of  Daniel  comprises  only  great  and  marked 
events  or  characters  ;  and  that  nothing  like  a  book  of  annals  is  either  de 
signed  or  attempted.  Quite  to  the  purpose  is  the  remark  of  Jerome  here  : 
"  Non  curae  fuit  prophetali  spiritui  historiae  ordinem  sequi,  sed  prae- 
clara  quaeque  perstringere."  Comm.  in  loc. 

(3)  And  a  mighty  king  will  rise  up,  and  he  shall  rule  with  extensive  sway,  and  do 
according  to  his  pleasure. 

The  sequel  shows  that  Alexander  the  Great  is  here  meant.  To  him 
•visa  applies  with  peculiar  force.  —  S"n  btiJEE  ,  Ace.  of  manner  here  = 
extensively,  or  it  may  be  translated  an  extensive  dominion,  making  the 
noun  the  Ace.  of  object.  It  is  singular  that  Curtius  X.  5.  §  35,  should 
use  the  same  phraseology  respecting  Alexander,  as  the  angel  does  in  the 
present  case  :  "  By  the  aid  of  his  good  fortune,  he  seemed  to  the  nations 
agere  quidquid  placebat." 

(4)  And  when  he  is  risen  up,  his  kingdom  shall  be  broken  in  pieces,  and  it  shall  be 
divided  according  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven  ;  but  not  to  his  posterity,  and  not  ac 
cording  to  the  dominion  with  which  he  ruled,  for  his  kingdom  shall  be  plucked  up, 
and  shall  be  for  others  besides  those. 


VTQ:?±!|  ,  if  referred  to  the  IBS  in  the  preceding  verse,  must  be  regarded 
as  simply  expressing  the  general  idea  :  ivhen  he  shall  have  risen  up. 
Rosenrn.  and  Hav.  connect  with  the  word  the  idea  of  attaining  to  the  height 
of  his  power;  which  might  answerwell  enough  outof  such  a  connection.  But 
as  the  word  is  now  connected,  it  would  seem  to  be  urging  more  significance 
upon  it  than  properly  belongs  to  it.  —  "i^fl  >  lit.  shall  be  shivered,  (our 
English  word  being  merely  a  repetition  of  the  Hebrew  one.)  The  same 
word  is  used  in  8:  8,  where  it  is  applied  to  the  great  horn,  and  well  fits 
the  nature  of  the  expression  there.  It  was  natural  to  retain  it  here.  But 
how  to  save  the  dynasty  from  ending  with  Alexander,  after  what  is  said 
in  this  verse,  I  do  not  well  see.  Lengerke  and  others  who  make  the  em 
pire  of  the  four  dynasties  that  follow,  a  part  of  the  same  dynasty  with  that 
of  Alexander,  are  obliged  to  do  actual  violence  to  the  language.  — 


CHAP.  XL  4  329 

Shall  be  divided  toward  or  according  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven  has  refe 
rence  to  the  four  great  divisions,  into  which,  some  years  after  the  death 
of  Alexander  the  Great,  his  empire  was  mainly  divided.  The  Hebrews 
name  only  four  of  the  cardinal* points  ;  but  here  the  mere  direction  of 
these  points  is  not  the  main  thing  aimed  at.  The  number  four  has  a 
special  significancy ;  and  the  general  idea  of  being  situated  in  different 
parts  of  the  great  empire,  constitutes  the  remainder  of  what  is  designated 
by  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  fnn1] ,  Niph.  apoc.  of  fi^n ,  with  Tseri 
under  the  praeformative  (instead  of  short  Hhireq)  because  of  the  follow 
ing  Guttural.  —  But  not  to  his  posterity,  i.  e.  the  kingdom  shall  not  be 
for  his  offspring.  Alexander  had  two  sons  ;  one  named  Hercules,  by 
Barsine  the  daughter  of  Darius,  who  was  assassinated  soon  after  his  fa 
ther's  death  by  Polysperchon ;  the  other,  by  Roxana,  who  was  named 
Alexander,  and  with  his  guardian  Philip  Aridaeus  was  shortly  cut  off  in 
the  same  manner.  The  universal  empire  was  soon  seized  upon  by  the 
leading  spirits  of  Alexander's  army,  and  after  many  and  bloody  contests, 
finally  was  partitioned  among  four  of  the  leaders.  This  is  merely  ad 
verted  to  in  our  text ;  for  in  itself  it  little  concerned  the  Jews,  and  there 
is  no  intention  of  communicating  the  history  of  foreign  nations  which 
does  not  concern  them. 

And  not  according  to  the  dominion  with  which  he  ruled,  i.  e.  These 
four  kingdoms  shall  none  of  them  be  so  powerful  in  itself  as  his  empire  was. 
Alexander's  dominion  embraced  the  whole,  theirs  only  a  part.  —  ViSft  Ro- 
senmuller  takes  for  a  participial,  like  dan ,  because,  as  he  alleges,  the  Za- 
qeph  over  it  has  no  power  to  prolong  the  last  vowel,  in  'buyn ;  a  singular 
reason,  since  cases  of  prolongation  by  this  accent  are  sufficiently  frequent, 
see  v.  27  below,  ribsn  ;  also  Ezek.  18:  12,  and  the  like  in  Amos  3:  8. 
Lev.  5:  18,  al  saepe.  The  noun  and  verb  of  the  same  root  are  here 
employed  in  the  usual  manner  of  the  Hebrews,  §  135.  1.  Note  1.  — 
13 ,  for,  is  to  be  referred  back  to  the  clause,  but  not  to  his  posterity.  It 
stands  before  the  ground  or  reason  why  the  empire  was  not  given  to  his 
offspring.  —  UJnsn ,  it  shall  be  plucked  up,  eradicated.  The  very  nature  of 
the  image  employed  shows  the  utter  destruction  of  the  great  empire. 
I  see  not  how  stronger  language  could  well  be  selected.  —  The 
others,  are  such  as  belong  not  to  his  posterity.  So  the  sequel :  in| 
lit.  of  the  separation  from  these,  (as  we  must  express  it),  1!a!?B  being  a 
compound  of  *fi  ,  b ,  and  13  ,  and  means  besides,  separate  from,  or  than, 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  passage.  All  is  plain  in  view  of  the  his 
toric  facts  related  above.  Rosenm,  and  Leng.  give  a  different  turn  to 
r6&t  ^alba ,  but  without  good  reason,  see  Maurer  in  loc. 

To  these  simple  outlines  the  speaker  limits  himself,  in  giving  an  ac- 

28* 


330  CHAP.  XL  5,  6. 

count  of  the  fourth  dynasty  in  general.  He  proceeds,  in  the  sequel,  to 
notice  only  those  divisions  of  the  great  kingdom,  which  concerned  the 
welfare  of  the  Jews,  and  were  in  their  neighborhood.  The  king  of  the 
south  is  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  the  north  means  Syria. 

(5)  And  the  king  of  the  south  shall  wax  strong,  but  one  of  his  princes  shall  be 
come  more  powerful  than  he,  and  shall  become  a  king,  an  extensive  domain  shall  his 
kingdom  be. 

The  king  here  noticed  is  Ptolemy  Lagi  or  Soter,  the  first  Grecian 
king  of  Egypt,  and  one  of  Alexander's  generals.  He  gave  the  Jews 
much  trouble  for  a  time,  but  afterwards  treated  them  with  more  mild 
ness  ;  Jos.  Ant.  VII.  1.  —  •n'nizJ  "pal ,  but  one  of  his  princes  ;  *i  I  trans 
late  but,  because  contrast  is  here  intended.  That  "ja  may  signify  one  as 
well  as  someof(p\uT.),  see  Lex.  •)»  1.  a.  Ezek.  6:  25.  Gen.  28:11,  comp. 
v.  18.  Ps.  137:  3.  But  to  whom  does  i-nto  refer  by  its  suffix  ?  Rosenm.  re 
fers  it  back  to  Alexander  (v.  4),  and  he  applies  "ito  to  Ptolemy  thus :  "Et  is 
quidem  unus  ex  ducibus  ejus"  (i.  e.  Alexander),  so  that  the  affirmation  has 
respect  merely  to  the  rank  or  condition  of  Ptolemy.  More  correctly,  as  I 
apprehend,  do  Leng.,  Maurer,  Ges.,  and  others  refer  the  suffix  to  Ptolemy, 
and  regard  SeleucusNicator  as  the  person  designated.  He  was  first  a  satrap 
and  commander  under  Ptolemy  ;  then  he  declared  himself  independent, 
proclaimed  himself  a  king,  subdued  for  himself  all  the  country  east  of  the 
Euphrates,  and  formed  the  powerful  Syrian  dynasty  which  goes  under 
his  name.  From  him  comes  the  era  of  the  Seleucidae,  B.  C.  312.  He 
was  by  far  the  most  powerful  of  all  Alexander's  followers.  Hence 
•\*by  ptrp ,  he  shall  be  strong  above  or  beyond  him,  i.  e.  beyond  Ptolemy 
Lagi.  —  bisai ,  and  shall  rule,  a  verb,  not  a  participial  as  Rosenm.  main 
tains.  The  extent  of  his  dominion  is  indicated  by  :n  bttteja .  See  Ar- 
rian  Exped.  Alex.  VII.  22.  Appian  de  Reb.  Syr.  c.  LV. 

(6)  And  at  the  end  of  some  years,  shall  they  form  alliances,  and  the  daughter  of 
the  king  of  the  South  shall  come  to  the  king  of  the  North,  in  order  to  make  concilia 
tion  ;   but  she  shall  not  retain  the  power  of  aid,  nor  shall  he  stand,  nor  his  aid,  but 
she  shall  be  given  up,  and  they  who  sent  her,  and  he  who  begat  her,  and  he  who  re 
ceived  her,  in  those  times. 

fi^d ,  used  in  this  way  without  limitation,  means  some  time.  !HShnl)  re 
fers  not  toPtolemy  Lagi  and  Seleucus  Nicator,  but  to  the  kings  of  the  North 
and  South  after  some  years  ;  for  Antiochus  Soter,  who  followed  Nicator, 
is  passed  by,  without  any  mention.  The  southern  king  here  adverted  to 
seems  plainly  to  be  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (not  Lagi).  Philadelphus 
gave  his  daughter  Berenice  in  marriage  to  Antiochus  Theos  of  Syria,  in 
hope  of  putting  an  end  to  the  contests  between  the  two  countries.  — 


CHAP.  XL  6.  331 

n  indicates  more  than  mere  journeying.  The  meaning  is,  that  she 
shall  go  to  the  king  of  the  North  as  his  wife,  implying  an  entrance  into 
his  palace.  —  d^W-iE ,  lit.  recta,  i.  e.  to  make  straight  things  that  were 
crooked  or  perverse ;  but  here  it  stands  for  conciliation,  peace,  inasmuch 
as  before  this  marriage  the  two  kingdoms  were  at  war.  —  In  SVi-Tfn  Ti'is , 
she  shall  not  retain  the  power  of  an  auxiliary,  I  take  the  article  to  belong  to 
the  first  word  in  reality,  §  109.  1.  m3  has  here  a  peculiar  sense,  being 
applied  to  the  ability  of  an  ally  or  helper,  i.  e.  helping  power  (?i"it), 
and  being  made  definite  in  this  case  by  this  latter  word,  it  becomes  a 
proper  subject  to  be  qualified  by  the  article.  Lengerke  supposes  the  ar 
ticle  to  refer  to  the  marriage  of  Berenice  with  Antiochus,  thus  making 
virtually  a  repeated  mention  of  this  occurrence  in  the  word  si'it .  I  deem 
the  other  view  of  the  subject  to  be  more  correct ;  see  the  like  in  §  109. 
Arm,  being  the  leading  member  of  the  body  employed  in  the  accomplish 
ment  of  any  work,  is  naturally  enough  employed  in  the  tropical  sense  of 
aid,  help,  or  (abstract  being  put  for  concrete)  in  the  sense  of  aider,  helper. 
—  *ra?|]  riVj,  the  sense  of  the  passage  demands  that  we  should  refer  it  to 
the  king  of  the  South,  the  father  of  the  helper  or  aid.  —  iV-iTI  ,  nor  his 
helper,  1 ,  after  a  negative  in  the  preceding  connected  clause,  is  equiva 
lent  to  fi&1 ,  i.  e.  =  nor.  Here  the  helper  is  of  course  Berenice.  — 
But  she  shall  be  given  up,  refers  to  the  violent  death  of  Berenice,  who, 
after  the  death  of  her  father  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  was  rejected  by 
Antiochus,  who  then  resumed  his  former  wife  Laodice.  The  latter,  jeal 
ous  of  Berenice,  caused  her  and  her  child  to  be  put  to  death.  —  niso^ai, 
and  those  who  sent  her  or  caused  her  to  go,  viz.  to  the  Syrian  king ; 
see  xan  in  the  first  part  of  the  verse.  I  take  this  not  to  mean  mere 
way-conductors,  i.  e.  servants,  but  the  court  of  Egypt  making  the  alliance. 
The  plural  is  preserved  by  all  the  ancient  Versions  ;  but  many  Codices 
(some  thirty)  read  ft&pM ,  i.  e.  the  sing,  number,  referring  to  him  who 
introduced  her  to  Antiochus,  i.  e.  her  husband.  But  there  is  no  need  of 
this  change  in  the  text.  The  plural  will  designate  the  court  of  Ptolemy, 
who  were  doubtless  concerned  with  the  negotiation  of  the  marriage. 
Moreover,  in  case  we  adopt  the  singular  here,  and  then  refer  the  word  to 
Ptolemy,  then  there  will  be  a  kind  of  tautology,  inasmuch  as  the  next 
word  describes  Ptolemy  as  the  father  of  Berenice. 

WiV*rn ,  and  him  who  begat  her.  This  is  the  only  construction  the  text 
as  now  pointed  will  bear.  When  a  Part,  is  employed  in  the  sense  of  a 
verb,  (and  it  is  so  here),  then  the  prefixing  of  the  article  is  the  regular  con 
struction,  even  when  a  suffix-pronoun  is  appended,  Ewald  Krit.  Gramm.  s. 
582.  In  reality  the  so  called  article,  in  such  a  case,  is  a  relative  demonstra 
tive,  §  109.  2.  a.  On  the  contrary,  the  reading  proposed  by  Dathe,  Ber- 


332  CHAP.  XL  7. 

tholdt,  Dereser,  Rosenmiiller,  and  De  Wette,  viz.  fn^rj  (suff.  state  of 
"&•;  child,  with  the  article),  is  contrary  to  the  usus  loquendi  ;  for  nouns 
having  a  suffix  pronoun  omit  the  article,  §  108.  2.  The  sense  of  the 
word  thus  pointed  would  indeed  be  good ;  for  the  child  of  Berenice  was 
murdered  with  its  mother.  This  would  well  agree  with  "jrsn ,  which 
here  signifies  to  give  over  or  give  up  to  death.  The  difficulty  with  the 
text  as  it  is,  seems  to  be  principally  this,  viz.  that  neither  Ptolemy  nor 
his  court  were  given  up  to  a  violent  death.  But  breviloquence  in  ani 
mated  discourse,  not  unfrequently  leads  the  writer  to  the  omission  of 
verbs  which  must  be  mentally  supplied  ;  as  in  all  cases  of  Zeugma.  Be 
sides,  the  difficulty  is  just  the  same  as  it  respects  nijon1!? ,  (whether  one 
reads  it  as  plur.  or  sing.),  so  that  no  relief  is  gained  from  this  by  reading 
Wn^tt  in  the  case  before  us.  The  text  must  therefore  be  regarded  as 
breviloquence,  and  the  appropriate  verb  must  be  supplied  by  the  reader, 
in  respect  to  the  nouns  which  follow  jon .  —  ftj^rrasi ,  Part.  Hiph.  with 
suff.,  the  Yodh  between  the  second  and  third  radical  letter  omitted,  i.  e. 
written  defective  ;  lit.  him  who  took  hold  on  her,  i.  e.  Antiochus  Theos. 
In  order  to  marry  Berenice  he  rejected  his  former  wife  Laodice  ;  and 
doubtless,  in  order  to  propitiate  the  king  of  Egypt,  he  put  on  the  appear 
ance  of  eagerness  for  the  new  connection.  Hence  the  strong  word  here 
employed,  not  meaning  simply  to  take  or  receive,  but  to  take  with  a  grasp, 
and  so  (at  least  to  appearance)  with  eagerness.  However,  soon  after 
the  death  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (in  some  two  years),  Antiochus  re 
sumed  his  former  wife  Laodice;  but  she,  jealous  of  his  constancy, 
administered  poison  to  him,  by  which  he  died.  Soon  after  this  event, 
in  order  to  secure  the  crown  to  her  own  son,  Laodice,  procured  the  death 
of  Berenice  and  her  infant  child.  Inasmuch  then  as  Philadelphus  him 
self  died  in  some  two  years  after  the  alliance  formed  with  Antiochus,  it 
follows  that  all  the  parties  here  concerned  speedily  perished,  with  the 
exception  of  the  fi^n^a ,  in  regard  to  whom,  we  do  not  know  whether 
such  was  the  case  or  not,  because  we  have  no  particular  history  of  their 
times.  But  after  the  test  of  history,  to  which  we  have  put  the  rest  of 
the  text,  we  may  trust  the  writer  for  this,  and  believe  that  he  has  de 
scribed  things  as  they  were.  The  whole  affair  was  marked  with  insidious 
and  treacherous  designs,  and  also  with  perfidy  and  blood.  —  d^FiSa , 
during  those  times,  the  article  (in  the  prefix  3)  here  referring  to  the  end 
of  some  years  (n^SttJ  y^)  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  and  of  course 
being  equivalent  to  the  pronominal  those. 

(7 )  And  one  of  the  shoots  of  her  roots  shall  rise  up  in  his  place,  and  he  shall  come 
to  his  army,  and  enter  into  the  fortified  places  of  the  king  of  the  north,  and  he  shall 
do  [his  pleasure]  in  them,  and  bring  [them]  into  his  grasp. 


CHAP.  XL  8.  333 


3B  ,  here  "ja  has  a  partitive  sense  =  one  of;  see  under  vya  'pa  in 
v.  5.  As  "isa  is  singular,  it  would  make  the  best  sense  to  regard  it  as 
generic  here,  meaning  posterity,  progeny.  —  Of  fiiTzrns  (sho-ra-she-ha), 
the  same  expression  in  Isa.  11:  1  ;  lit.  the  roots  or  source  of  her,  i.  e.  of 
the  daughter  of  the  king  of  the  South  (v.  5),  means  her  father  or  her 
parents.  The  isa  or  offshoot,  is  Ptolemy  Euergetes,  the  brother  of 
Berenice,  and  son  and  successor  of  Philadelphus.  To  avenge  the  death 
of  Berenice,  he  marched  with  a  large  army  against  the  king  of  the  North, 
slew  Laodice,  and  swept  over  the  whole  country  even  to  the  Tigris, 
everywhere  exacting  contributions  at  his  pleasure.  —  tiaraa  may  be  taken 
in  a  generic  sense  —fortifications,  (I  have  translated  it  as  a  noun  of 
multitude),  since  ens  in  the  sequel  indicates  a  plur.  number,  either  in 
respect  to  strongholds,  or  possibly  in  respect  to  the  Syrians.  Indeed, 
considering  the  extent  of  Ptolemy's  conquests,  it  would  seem  necessary 
to  give  tiara  such  a  generic  sense,  at  any  rate.  —  n'22  is  here,  as  else 
where  in  this  book,  a  constructio  praegnans,  iaan  being  understood  after 
it.  —  tafia  may  be  applied,  as  before  noted,  to  the  strongholds  generically 
considered,  or  to  the  Syrians  belonging  to  the  north  country.  I  incline 
to  the  former,  on  the  ground  that  the  following  p^tfifi  is  better  suited  to 
the  taking  fast  possession  of  them  than  of  the  people.  This  whole  inva 
sion  by  the  Egyptian  king  was  conducted  with  great  skill  and  power, 
and  had  not  Euergetes  been  summoned  back  to  Egypt  by  tumults  there, 
it  seems  quite  probable  he  would  have  made  a  complete  conquest  of 
Syria,  and  brought  the  Syrian  dynasty  to  a  close. 

(8)  And  moreover  their  gods,  with  their  molten  images,  with  their  costly  vessels, 
silver  and  gold,  will  he  carry  into  captivity  to  Egypt  ;  and  then  will  he  stand  aloof, 
for  some  time,  from  the  king  of  the  North. 

Their  gods  with  their  molten  images  is  an  expression  in  accordance 
with  the  views  of  the  conquerors.  Idolaters  generally  suppose,  that  the 
god  whom  they  worship  dwells  in  his  image  or  statue.  When  the 
guardian-gods  of  any  country  were  carried  away,  it  was  supposed  that 
no  one  would  protect  them  against  aggressors.  On  such  a  ground  the 
Philistines  seem  to  have  carried  away  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  1  Sam. 
5:  1  seq.  The  Romans  carried  the  gods  of  conquered  countries  in  tri 
umphal  procession  at  Rome.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  Ptolemy 
Euergetes  did  the  like,  in  his  victorious  Syrian  war.  —  EtT-?.P?  »  parti 
cipial  from  tpW  ,  means  images  made  by  fusion  and  casting.  The  suff. 
nh'1-  must  relate  to  the  Syrian  nation  or  people.  —  wron  ^3  &2  ,  lit. 
with  their  vessels  of  desire,  which  of  course  indicates  those  that  were 
made  of  the  precious  metals,  and  such  as  were  adorned  with  jewels,  or 


334  CHAP.  XL  9,  10. 

were  of  curious  workmanship  ;  and  the  like.  —  Silver  and  gold  may  be 
an  explanatory  clause,  put  in  apposition  with  vessels  of  desire,  designed 
to  show  the  materials  out  of  which  the  vessels  were  made.  This  seems  to 
be  the  most  obvious  construction.  But  these  words  may  indicate  the 
precious  metals  over  and  above  the  statues  and  the  vessels.  One  would 
hardly  expect,  however,  the  omission  of  "j  before  C]O3  ,  if  this  were  the 
design  of  the  writer.  On  this  account,  I  must  prefer  the  preceding  in 
terpretation.  —  X3^  ^123  into  exile  shall  he  carry.  But  *»aa  generally 
applies  only  to  persons,  not  to  things.  Instances,  however,  may  be 
found,  of  its  being  applied  to  things;  e.  g.  Ps.  78:  61,  and  so  to  beasts, 
Amos  4:  10.  Ex.  12:  29.  Here,  however,  as  the  gods  are  also  carried 
away,  *od  may  be  employed  without  doing  any  violence  to  propriety.  — 
•pa  "ra>;?  seems  plainly  to  mean  stand  of  or  aloof,  abstain  from,  and  the 
like  ;  although  Berth.  Ges.,  Winer,  De  Wette,  and  others,  render  the 
phrase  stand  before,  that  is  withstand,  the  king  of  the  North.  But  the 
idiom  does  not  seem  to  admit  of  this.  Jerome  (in  loc.)  says,  that  Ptolemy 
"brought  back  with  him  from  Syria,  40,000  talents  of  silver,  costly  ves 
sels,  and  2,500  statues  of  the  gods,  among  which  latter  were  those  which 
had  been  carried  away  by  Cambyses  from  Egypt  to  Persia."  The  idol 
atrous  Egyptians  were  so  elated  at  this,  that  they  gave  to  Ptolemy  the 
surname  of  EvfQysTqe,  the  beneficent. 


(9)  And  he  shall  come  to  the  kingdom  of  the  king  of  the  South,  but  he  shall  re 
turn  to  his  own  land. 

»3*i  ,  viz.  the  king  of  Syria,  Seleucus  Callinicus,  who  is  the  immediate 
antecedent.  —  3121.,  1  but,  for  here  is  contrast,  §  152.  B.  b.  Callinicus, 
after  some  two  years  from  the  withdrawal  of  Ptolemy  from  Syria,  re 
claimed  some  of  the  provinces  in  Asia  Minor,  and  attacked  the  Egyptian 
domain  by  sea  and  land,  on  both  of  which  he  was  utterly  defeated. 

Under  Ptolemy  Euergetes  much  favor  was  shown  to  the  Jews  ;  and 
it  seems  to  be  on  this  account,  that  so  much  is.here  said  of  him  ;  for  after 
this,  Egypt  comes  into  view  only  as  connected  with  or  opposed  to  the 
Syrian  kings.  '9 

(10)  And  his  sons  shall  make  war,  and  they  shall  collect  a  multitude  of  large 
armies  ;  and  he  shall  move  onward,  and  overwhelm,  and  pass  through-,  and  he  shall 
return,  and  shall  carry  on  the  war  even  to  his  strong  hold. 

1513*!  ,  (the  *»  after  5  being  omitted),  and  his  sons,  i.  e.  the  sons  of  Se 
leucus  Callinicus  (for  he  is  the  immediate  antecedent),  whose  names 
were  Seleucus  Ceraunus  and  Antiochus  Magnus.  The  former  of  these 
two  began  the  war  against  Egypt,  in  Asia  Minor  where  Egypt  had 


CHAP.  XL  11,12.  335 

tributary  or  allied  provinces.  He  perished  in  the  contest  there.  Anti- 
ochus  Magnus  then  led  on  his  army  toward  Egypt ;  and  hence  Nl'a  KIM 
in  the  singular.  The  Inf.  being  after  the  definite  verb  here  denotes 
the  continued  advance  of  the  army  under  Antiochus,  §  128.  3. 1. — -t^iai 
borrows  its  imagery  from  the  overwhelming  of  a  mighty  and  irresistible 
stream  ;  as  also  does  -QS .  —  aiiiji ,  he  shall  return  here  means,  that  he 
shall  come  a  second  time  to  renew  the  contest.  After  the  first  attack,  in 
which  Antiochus  had  much  success,  and  advanced  even  to  Pelusium, 
the  Egyptians,  then  under  Ptolemy  Philopator  the  son  of  Euergetes, 
persuaded  him  to  a  truce  of  four  months.  During  this  he  prepared  for 
renewing  the  contest,  which  he  did  with  much  energy,  and  was  for 
awhile  victorious.  —  'H&P'V! ,  (so  it  should  be  pointed,  if  we  follow  the 
Kethibh),  and  not  (as  the  Qeri)  rnjrp  in  the  singular.  The  subjects  of 
the  verb  (plur.)  seem  to  be  Antiochus  and  Ptolemy  Philopator.  But 
the  Qeri  seems  here  to  be  preferable,  and  this  points  to  Antiochus,  who, 
by  constantly  pushing  onwards,  penetrated  even  to  the  fortification  of 
Raphia  on  the  border  of  Egypt ;  which  our  text  designates  by  ri-TSE , 
(ri-  suff.  for  1'-),  his  fortress,  viz.  the  fortress  of  the  Egytian  king ;  for 
the  nature  of  the  case  shows,  that  the  king  of  the  North  is  attacking  the 
domain  of  the  king  of  the  South,  and  of  course  the  reference  of  his  to  the 
Egyptian  king  in  this  case  becomes  plain.  When  the  verb  rrna  is  fol 
lowed  by  a  or  15  before  an  object,  the  verb  implies  after  it  a  noun 
designating  war,  attack,  etc.,  and  so  the  expression  here  is  breviloquent, 
or  a  constructio  praegnam. 

(11)  And  the  king  of  the  South  will  become  exceedingly  embittered,  and  he  will 
go  forth  and  fight  with  him,  the  king  of  the  north,  and  he  will  raise  up  a  large  mul 
titude,  and  that  multitude  shall  be  given  into  his  hand. 

Philopator  was  aroused  from  his  sloth  and  voluptuous  habits  by  the 
attack  upon  Raphia,  so  near  the  proper  borders  of  Egypt,  and  under  the 
sway  of  its  king.  He  assembled  a  large  army,  70,000  foot,  5,000  cavalry, 
and  seventy-three  elephants,  Polyb.  c.  86.  Ptolemy  himself  took  the 
command  of  these  forces,  or  (to  use  the  literal  language  of  our  text), 
they  were  put  into  his  hand,  meaning  that  they  were  under  his  control ; 
for  it  is  plain  that  the  same  multitude  which  he  raised  up,  is  the  one 
committed  to  his  direction. 

(12)  And  the  multitude  shall  be  lifted  up,  and  his  mind  become  elated,  and  he 
•will  cast  down  myriads  ;  but  he  shall  not  become  powerful. 

Favorable  occurrences,  as  Polybius  relates,  excited  hope  and  ardor 
in  the  Egyptian  army,  and  of  course  in  their  leader.  The  Kethibh  must 
be  read  WTJ ,  and  thus  make  the  construction  asyndic.  For  this  reason 


336  CHAP.  XL  13,  14. 

I  prefer,  in  this  case,  the  Keri  (071.),  because  it  gives  the  bond  of  con 
nection.  The  destroying  of  myriads  was  the  consequence  of  a  severe 
battle,  in  which  a  great  victory  was  won  over  Antiochus.  —  nan  ssbi  ,  but 
he  witt  not  be  powerful.  Ptolemy,  content  with  repelling  the  invasion, 
made  a  treaty  with  Antiochus,  and  failed  to  take  advantage  of  his  vic 
tories.  He  then  hastened  back  to  the  enjoyment  of  his  usual  sloth  and 
debauchery.  This  occasions  the  prophet  to  say,  that  he  would  not  become 
powerful. 

(13)  And  the  king  of  the  North  shall  return,  and  he  will  raise  up  a  multitude 
greater  than  the  first  one  ;  and  at  the  end  of  some  time,  [after]  several  years,  he  shall 
come  with  a  great  army  and  with  much  wealth. 


At  the  end  of  times,  dipisn  ,  with  the  article.  I  take  this,  however,  not 
as  qualifying  d"W  ,  but  the  whole  phrase,  §  109.  1  ;  and  in  accordance 
with  this,  the  word  d^ttj  ,  which  is  in  apposition  with  ftitnsrt  and  exegeti- 
cal  of  it  (§  111),  has  no  article,  d^aw  is  a  common  phrase  to  designate 
the  idea  of  some  years,  i.  e.  some  moderate  and  not  exactly  defined  period. 
And  the  like  as  to  c^F)S>  =  some  time.  But  the  word  end  is  specific,  and 
admits  qualification  by  the  article  ;  which  however  must  be  placed  before 
the  noun  that  follows  in  the  Genitive,  (§  109.  1).  As  to  facts,  Antiochus 
Magnus  waited  some  thirteen  or  fourteen  years,  before  he  again  invaded 
Egypt.  Philopator  was  then  dead  (f203  B.  C.),  and  his  son,  Ptolemy 
Epiphanes,  (four  years  of  age)  reigned  in  his  stead.  Antiochus  had  then 
just  returned  from  his  splendid  conquests  and  triumphs  in  Persia,  Bac- 
tria,  and  Asia  Minor,  and  was  at  the  very  height  of  his  power  and  wealth. 
His  army  must  have  been  very  large,  and  the  plunder  which  he  had 
collected  in  so  many  countries  must  have  made  him  very  rich.  Hence 
rn  lawna  ,  with  much  wealth.  The  mention  of  this  in  connection  with 
his  march  of  invasion,  &O3  JOT1,  would  seem  to  indicate,  that  his  troops, 
returning  from  their  conquests,  had  marched  in  the  direction  of  Egypt, 
before  returning  to  Syria  and  depositing  their  wealth  there.  —  Vjna  with 
force,  but  this,  like  our  English  word  force,  is  often  applied  to  the  power 
of  an  army. 

(14)  And  in  those  times,  many  will  stand  up  against  the  king  of  the  South,  even 
the  most  violent  of  thy  people  will  lift  themselves  up,  so  as  to  establish  prophetic 
vision,  but  they  shall  fall. 

On  the  return  of  Antiochus  from  his  victories  in  Egypt,  a  portion  of 
the  Jews  welcomed  him  with  his  army,  provided  for  them,  and  assisted 
in  reducing  the  Egyptian  garrison  in  Jerusalem,  Jos.  Antiq.  XII.  3.  3. 
By  calling  the  party  who  thus  allied  themselves  to  Antiochus,  ''X'HB  ^a 
Tp|5  ,  the  speaker  has  shown  his  strong  disapprobation  of  their  conduct. 


CHAP.  XI.  15.  337 

i2^Q  is  the  const,  of  &  forma  dagessanda,  •p'ns  ==  "p^Q ,  the  Qamets 
being  of  course  immutable.  The  meaning  is  violent,  disruptive,  which 
may  be  spoken  in  a  literal  or  in  a  tropical  sense.  The  latter  sense, 
(which  belongs  to  this  passage),  would  probably  have  relation  to  their 
breaking  either  the  sacred  covenant  of  the  Jews,  or  more  probably  the 
treaty  with  the  Egyptian  king ;  for  Egyptian  dominion  the  Jews  had 
acknowledged  for  more  than  a  century.  In  thus  rising  up,  they  do  but 
establish  the  prophetic  vision,  "ptn ,  viz.  the  prophecies  respecting  the 
troubles  of  the  Jews  under  the  fourth  dynasty :  see  7:  19—25.  8:  9  seq. 
9:26,27.  —  ^DSI  ,  for  the  form  with  Qamets,  see  §  29.  4.  b,  but  they 
shall  fall,  i.  e.  they  shall  perish,  or  at  least  be  disappointed  in  their  hopes 
and  expectations. 

(15)  And  the  king  of  the  North  shall  come,  and  he  shall  cast  up  a  mound,  and 
take  a  strongly  fortified  city;  and  the  forces  of  the  South  shall  not  stand,  even  his 
choicest  troops  —  there  shall  be  no  power  to  stand. 

The  Egyptian  king  sent  Scopas,  one  of  his  ablest  warriors,  to  reclaim 
the  cities  of  Palestine  and  Coelesyria.  Antiochus  met  him  in  contest, 
near  the  sources  of  the  Jordan,  and  drove  him  back,  until  he  took  refuge 
in  Sidon,  a  fortified  place.  Antiochus  there  besieged  the  remnant  of  the 
Egyptian  troops,  and  of  course  cast  up  (TJ'B'JS?),  or  (lit.)  poured  out,  a 
mound  by  which  he  might  storm  the  city.  The  verb  here  employed 
refers  to  the  method  of  raising  artificial  mounds,  by  bringing  in  and 
pouring  down  the  earth  necessary  to  construct  them.  Scopas  was  final 
ly  reduced  by  famine,  and  gave  up  the  city  and  his  army,  with  liberty 
for  the  latter  to  depart  without  their  arms  and  other  possessions.  — 
rrmrra  "PS ,  a  city  of  fortifications,  which  was  taken  by  Antiochus.  The 
latter  noun  is  a  pluralis  intensivus,  having  the  meaning  given  to  it  in  the 
version,  §  106.  Note  2,  with  fiemark.  —  mVit,plur.  fern.,  but  plainly 
designating  the  idea  of  forces,  like  fi^n ,  and  so  the  masc.  verb  iibs^  is 
joined  with  it.  —  i^nrra  D?ji ,  the  word  n?  is  not  confined  to  designating 
a  nation  or  tribe,  but  is  applied  to  any  large  collection  of  citizens,  ser 
vants,  soldiers,  etc. ;  lit.  then,  the  company  of  his  choice  ones,  i.  e.  his 
Corps  d* Elites  or  chosen  troops,  the  best  of  his  army.  Such  doubtless 
were  those  soldiers  who  had  accompanied  Scopas.  They  had  no  power 
to  stand,  i.  e.  to  maintain  their  post  against  the  aggressions  of  Antiochns. 
But  not  improbably  the  chosen  men  refers  to  the  army  sent  by  Ptolemy 
to  relieve  Scopas  during  the  siege,  whi'jh  of  course  were  picked  men,  and 
were  led  by  three  of  the  best  Egyptian  officers.  But  they  were  defeated, 
and  were  unable  to  save  Scopas  from  capture.  The  phrase  dsn 
is  in  the  Nom.  absolute,  as  to  his  chosen  bands,  etc. 

29 


338  CHAP.  XL  16,  17. 

(16)  And  he  who  cometh  shall  do  to  him  according  to  his  pleasure,  and  none  will 
stand  before  him,  and  he  will  take  his  position  in  the  goodly  land,  and  it  shall  be 
entirely  in  his  hand. 


KSfi  ,  he  who  cometh  refers  to  the  leading  agent  in  the  preceding  verse, 
viz.  to  Antiochus.  —  ias^i  ,  apoc.  form  of  the  verb  without  a  Vav  con 
secutive  (which  would  be  113553),  an(^  7et  with  tne  h'ke  narrative  sense  as 
the  common  Imperfect,  although  a  jussive  sense  properly  and  usually 
belongs  to  the  apoc.  form,  §  48.  2,  and  4.  a.  We  have  the  like  in  this 
chapter,  in  v.  10.  nfcj^  ,  in  v.  17  dfc£)i  ,  and  in  v.  18  aia^i  ;  in  all  of  which 
cases,  although  the  form  of  the  verb  is  apoc.,  yet  the  meaning  is  such  as 
the  normal  form  gives.  —  Y^»|  to  him,  i.  e.  to  the  person  whom  he  invades, 
viz.  the  King  of  the  South.  —  IBIS  ,  stands  firmly,  i.  e.  keeps  his  place. 
—  ^^l  shall  occupy  a  standing,  i.  e.  shall  establish  his  position.  Y^-3 
''nan  ,  lit.  in  the  land  of  beauty.  So  in  8:  9  above  ;  and  so  in  Ezek.  20; 
6,  15,  where  the  reason  of  the  appellation  is  given,  viz.  that  it  excels  all 
other  lands,  comp.  Jer.  3:  10.  The  article  stands  before  *ax,  as  often 
before  abstract  nouns.  —  'YTQ  nbai  seems  to  demand  the  meaning:  And 
he  shall  utterly  destroy  with  his  hand  or  by  his  power.  But  this  would 
disagree  with  historic  facts.  Antiochus  was  gratified  with  the  submis 
sion  and  aid  of  the  dix^a  "\aa  (v.  14),  and  treated  the  Jews  with  kind 
ness.  We  must  give  to  n?3  ,  then,  the  other  sense  that  it  bears,  viz.  that 
of  completion,  and  render  the  word  (for  so  we  lawfully  may)  as  a  noun  , 
lit.  completion  shall  be  in  his  hand,  i.  e.  in  his  power.  The  complete  pos 
session  or  sovereignty  of  the  country  must,  in  such  a  connection,  be  the 
idea  meant  to  be  conveyed,  for  destruction  is  not  the  idea  here  conveyed 
by  nbs  .  This  word,  moreover,  might  be  rendered  adverbially  :  "  And 
entirely  shall  [it]  be  in  his  hand." 

(17)  And  he  shall  set  his  face  to  enter  upon  the  strength  of  all  his  kingdom,  and 
pacification  with  him  shall  he  make,  and  the  daughter  of  women  shall  he  give  to 
him,  that  he  may  destroy  it:  but  it  shall  not  stand,  neither  shall  it  take  place  for 
him. 

C]$h  ,  power,  strength,  apparently  abstract  for  concrete,  i.  e.  strength  for 
the  strong  places  and  populous  parts  of  Egypt.  As  war  is  not  described 
in  this  verse,  the  translation  with  the  might  of  all  his  kingdom,  i.  e.  with 
the  hosts  of  Syria,  will  not  fit  the  passage.  What  Antiochus  is  aiming 
at,  is  to  have  a  predominance  in  Egypt,  so  that  he  may  resist  the  Ro 
man  aggressions,  irvolbB  ,  then,  refers  to  the  kingdom  of  Ptolemy.  — 
d^ni-H  has  occasioned  much  perplexity  among  interpreters.  To  apply 
this  appellation  to  the  apostate  Jews,  the  dijrnfi  ^a  of  v.  14,  seems  a 
mere  contradiction.  The  really  upright  Jews,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
not  the  persons  to  break  covenant,  and  join  with  Antiochus.  I  cannot 


CHAP.  XL  18.  339 

hesitate,  therefore,  with  Maurer,  to  regard  the  word  in  the  same  light  as 
I  do  D'n^'a  in  v.  6,  and  to  translate  it  pacification  or  conciliation,  i.  e. 
a  treaty  of  peace  and  concord.  The  objection  of  Lengerke,  that  the 
word  is  not  used  as  a  noun,  does  not  seem  to  be  very  solid.  Are  not  He 
brew  adjectives,  in  numerous  cases,  employed  as  nouns,  just  as  in  Greek 
and  Latin  ?  Having  the  same  root  then  as  d^ttpa ,  and  being  used  in 
a  connection  altogether  of  the  same  nature,  I  see  no  serious  difficulty  in 
the  interpretation  now  given.  It  is  certain,  that  a  general  appellation 
of  the  Jews  as  CP"^  ,  is  no  where  else  to  be  found ;  and  we  have  seen, 
indeed,  that  the  Jews  are  really  out  of  question  in  this  case.  The  sense 
given,  then,  is  the  only  tolerable  one  that  remains. 

The  daughter  of  women  is  idiomatic,  (like  son  of  man  for  mem),  and  de 
signates,  in  this  case,  Cleopatra  the  daughter  of  Antiochus,  whom  he  gave 
to  the  Egyptian  king  as  a  wife,  with  a  promised  dowry  of  Coelesyria 
and  Palestine,  and  in  this  way  made  c*n',r? ,  conciliation.  —  ^r"inrnb , 
not  to  destroy  her,  but  to  destroy  the  iniab'g ,  i.  e.  Ptolemy's  dominion. 
Not  so  much  the  country  as  the  domination  over  it,  is  designated  by 
ntob^  here,  and  so  the  ft  -  suffixed  to  the  verb,  refers  to  this  rflsba . 
The  whole  plan  was  to  bring  Ptolemy  within  the  power  of  the  Syrian 
king,  and  put  him  at  the  disposal  of  the  latter.  But  in  all  this,  as  the 
sequel  asserts,  Antiochus  was  entirely  frustrated.  ^ESP  $& ,  fern.,  i.  e. 
it,  viz.  his  counsel,  purpose,  shall  not  be  executed  or  established. 

(18)  And  he  shall  turn  his  face  toward  the  isles,  and  seize  many;  but  a  chieftain 
shall  cause  his  reproach  to  cease ;  besides  that  he  will  turn  back  his  reproaches  upon 
himself. 

Soon  after  the  events  in  Egypt,  related  in  the  preceding  verse,  Antio 
chus  engaged  in  new  undertakings.  Already  had  he  won  from  the  Roman 
grasp  several  islands  and  coast-towns,  along  the  shores  of  Asia  Minor. 
After  wintering  at  Ephesus,  he  set  out  to  pass  over  to  the  European  side 
of  the  Greeks.  In  Lycia,  at  Magnesia,  he  was  met  by  the  Roman  gene 
ral  Lucius  Scipio,  after  a  series  of  preceding  losses  and  defeats  on  the 
part  of  Antiochus,  and  the  final  battle  was  fought,  in  which,  of  some 
75,000  men  in  the  Syrian  army,  at  least  55,000  were  left  dead  on  the 
field,  and  the  rest  scattered  to  the  winds  ;  all  of  which  was  achieved  by 
about  30,000  Romans.  Antiochus  was  then  forced  to  give  up  all  claims 
to  any  domain  beyond  the  Taurus,  and  to  pay  the  Romans  15,000  talents 
of  Attic  silver.  Thus  ruined  both  as  to  his  forces  and  his  treasury,  he 
soon  came  to  an  unhappy  end,  as  v.  19  indicates.  —  "psp  ,  a  chieftain, 
anarthrous  because  it  is  not  designed  to  specificate  a  particular  individual. 
—  ina-in  may  be  either  active  or  passive,  i.  e.  it  may  indicate  the  reproach 
which  one  utters,  or  which  is  uttered  against  him,  §  112.  2.  The  first  is 


340  CHAP.  IX.  19,  20. 

the  meaning  here.  When  the  Romans  sent  ambassadors  to  request  Antio- 
chus  to  desist  from  his  incursions,  he  treated  them  with  haughtiness  and 
reproach,  Polyb.  XVIII.  34.  The  Roman  chieftain  not  only  put  a  stop  to 
this,  but  most  effectually  turned  back  the  reproaches  on  Antiochus  him 
self,  whose  defeat  and  disgrace  were  almost  without  a  parallel.  — 
ib  .  .  .  rv>a£Jn ,  stilled  for  him,  brought  to  silence  in  respect  to  him.  — 
•^a  ,  besides,  or  besides  that,  Tijx  being  implied  after  the  particle,  as  it 
often  is  ;  see  Lex.  —  Turn  back  on  himself,  i.  e.  Scipio  not  only  reduced 
the  haughty  and  reproachful  king  to  silence,  but  he  brought  him  into  dis 
grace  and  contempt.  Appian  (de  Reb.  Syr.  c.  37)  says,  that  men  were 
wont  to  say  of  him :  i]v  fiaoifovg  Jjvzio%os  6  ^yag,  i.  e.  Antiochus  the 
Great  was  a  king,  "ft ,  in  this  last  case,  is  Dativus  incommodi. 

(19)  Arid  he  shall  turn  his  face  toward  the  strong  holds  of  his  country,  and  he  shall 
stumble,  and  fall,  and  shall  no  more  be  found. 

After  a  pledge  to  pay  such  an  enormous  sum  to  the  Romans,  Antio 
chus  found  no  way  to  provide  for  it  except  by  military  exactions  of  trib 
ute  and  presents  from  his  subjects.  He  robbed  even  the  temples,  in 
order  to  furnish  the  stipulated  sum.  He  made  an  excursion  for  this  pur 
pose  into  the  East,  and  undertook,  by  the  aid  of  his  soldiers,  to  plunder 
by  night  the  temple  at  Elymais  in  Persia.  But  the  inhabitants  rose  en 
masse,  and  destroyed  both  him  and  his  soldiers.  —  "WE^  refers  to  the 
garrisoned  places  east  of  the  Taurus,  which  Antiochus  fortified  partly 
for  defence  and  partly  for  the  sake  of  giving  power  and  energy  to  the 
military  exaction  of  tribute.  His  sudden  and  violent  death  is  predicted  by 
the  last  clause  :  He  shall  stumble  and  fall,  and  shall  no  more  be  found. 

(20)  And  there  shall  stand  up,  in  his  place,  one  who  will  make  an  exactor  of  tribute 
to  pass  through  the  glory  of  the  kingdom  ;  and  after  some  time,  he  shall  be  destroyed, 
but  not  by  anger,  nor  yet  by  war. 

Seleucus  Philopator,  the  eldest  son  of  Antiochus,  succeeded  him.  The 
tribute  stipulated  by  his  father  was  1000  talents  each  year,  for  twelve 
years.  In  order  to  pay  this,  the  most  rigid  system  of  exacting  money  be 
came  necessary.  Hence  the  exactor  that  passes  through  the  glory  of  the 
kingdom,  i.  e.  Palestine ;  for  here  is  the  same  idea  as  in  "OSiri  fix  of  v.  16. 
Bertholdt  makes  *nti  to  mean  the  same  as  the  Greek  vipy,  tribute, 
honorary  gift.  But  as  there  is  no  other  example  of  this  nature  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  as  another  explanation  is  easy  and  obvious,  there  is  no 
need  of  such  an  interpretation.  Palestine  was  regarded  and  spoken  of  by 
the  Hebrews  as  the  most  glorious  of  all  countries.  —  C^nx  D^a  ,  af 
ter  some  time,  for  a .  before  words  of  time,  occasionally,  indicates  the  close 
of  that  time,  Lex.  a.  A.  3.  —  trBxa  xbi,  but  not  in  anger,  for  the  dual 


CHAP.  XL  21.  341 

form  is  used  in  this  tropical  sense,  because  the  nostrils  are  affected  by 
anger.  What  the  speaker  means,  is  that  Seleucus  would  not  be  cut  off 
in  a  quarrel,  where  the  passions  were  heated ;  and  not  in  war,  i.  e.  not 
in  battle.  He  seems  to  have  been  poisoned  by  one  of  his  courtiers,  He- 
liodorus,  who  endeavored  to  usurp  his  place,  but  was  speedily  ejected 
from  it. 

(21)  And  there  shall  stand  up  in  his  place  a  despicable  person,  on  whom  they  have 
not  put  the  splendor  of  dominion,  and  he  shall  come  quietly,  and  lay  hold  upon  the 
kingdom  by  flattery. 

The  JITS:  is  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  the  brother  of  Philopator,  and  son 
of  Antiochus  the  Great,  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  characters  ex 
hibited  on  the  pages  of  history.  He  was  both  avaricious  and  prodigal, 
excessive  in  his  indulgences  and  prone  to  violent  passions,  a  compound  of 
the  veriest  folly  and  weakness  in  some  respects,  and  of  great  cunning 
and  dexterity  in  some  others,  specially  in  regard  to  flattery.  At  one  pe 
riod  of  his  reign,  there  was  a  prospect  of  his  becoming  quite  powerful. 
But  reverses  came  upon  him,  and  he  died  at  last  nearly  as  his  father  had 
done  before  him,  and  on  the  like  occasion.  Indeed  his  extravagances 
and  follies  and  cruelty  were  so  great,  that  his  contemporaries  gave  him 
the  nickname  of  tmpatJje  (madman),  instead  of  the  title  which  he  as 
sumed,  viz.  Imyavfe  (illustrious).  This  will  explain  the  ground  of  the 
characteristic  in  the  text,  rttna ,  despicable.  —  wro  ,  3  plur.  impers.  = 
pass,  voice,  so  that  we  may  translate  thus :  the  splendor  or  dignity  of  do 
minion  was  not  put  upon  him,  viz.  was  not  voluntarily  given  to  him  by 
the  Syrians.  The  regal  dignity  descended  regularly,  on  the  death  of  Se 
leucus  Philopator,  to  his  son  Demetrius  Soter  ;  but  Antiochus,  then  on 
his  return  from  Rome,  (where  he  had  been  as  a  hostage  given  by  Antio 
chus  Magnus,  to  secure  the  fulfilment  of  the  treaty  he  had  made  with  the 
Romans),  seized  upon  the  kingdom  in  spite  of  Demetrius  ;  who  had  been 
sent  to  Rome  in  the  room  of  Antiochus.  He  was  at  Athens  on  his  re 
turn  from  Rome,  when  the  news  reached  him  of  the  death  of  Seleucus 
Philopator.  On  his  way  thence  to  Antioch,  he  visited  Eumenes  and  At- 
talus,  kings  of  Pergamus,  and  by  his  cunning  and  flattery  led  them  to 
espouse  his  cause.  Overawed  by  them  the  Syrians  yielded  peaceably  to 
the  claims  of  Antiochus,  although  they  did  not  voluntarily  place  him  on 
the  throne.  To  this  last  circumstance  irfl  «na  alludes.  In  like  manner 
Hlb'iJa  KS5! ,  he  shall  come  peaceably,  alludes  to  his  coming  without  the 
tumult  and  alarm  of  war.  Lengerke,  and  even  Gesenius,  translates  n$iz?a 
by  inopinato  i.  e.  suddenly,  unexpectedly  ;  but  this  seems  rather  an  im 
probable  meaning  here.  It  was  doubtless  known  publicly,  that  Demetrius, 
the  lawful  heir  of  the  throne,  had  gone  to  Rome,  as  a  hostage  in  the  room 
29* 


342  CHAP.  XL  22. 

of  Antiochus,  and  that  the  latter  was  on  his  return.  Unexpectedly,  then, 
could  hardly  apply  to  his  return.  That  there  was  no  civil  war  £tnd  no 
contests  worth  recording,  on  the  occasion  of  his  accession  to  the  throne, 
seems  to  be  matter  of  fact.  That  part  of  the  Syrians,  who  were  opposed 
to  the  usurper  Heliodorus,  would  of  course  favor  the  claims  of  Antiochus. 
They  and  the  forces  of  Eumenes  and  Attalus,  ready  for  action,  would 
naturally  overage  the  faction  of  the  usurper  ;  and  thus  Antiochus 
seated  himself  on  the  throne  without  any  war,  i.  e.  tt^ttra  .  —  Lay  hold 
upon  the  kingdom  lyy  flatteries,  in  which,  as  it  would  appear  from  history, 
and  from  various  declarations  of  this  book,  he  exceeded  most  men.  His 
antagonists,  and  all  the  different  partizans  for  Heliodorus,  Demetrius, 
and  Ptolemy  of  Egypt,  were,  as  it  would  seem,  conciliated  and  won  over 
by  such  means. 

(22)  And  overwhelming  forces  shall  be  overwhelmed  before  him,  and  be  broken  in 
pieces,  even  a  covenanted  prince. 

When  Antiochus  seated  himself  on  the  throne  of  Syria,  Ptolemy  Phi- 
lometor,  a  minor,  was  on  the  throne  of  Egypt.  The  latter  was  the  son  of 
Cleopatra,  daughter  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  and  sister  of  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes.  The  guardians  of  the  young  Philometor  demanded  of  Antio 
chus  Epiphanes,  that  he  should  give  up  Coelesyria  and  Palestine  to 
Egypt,,  inasmuch  as  Antiochus  the  Great  had  agreed,  that  these  should  be 
a  part  of  the  dowry  that  would  be  given  by  him  to  his  daughter  Cleopa 
tra,  who  was  married  to  Ptolemy  Epiphanes.  Antiochus  Epiphanes  re 
fused  to  make  the  required  concession,  and  even  denied  that  there  was 
any  promise  or  obligation  to  make  it.  The  Romans  interfered  between 
the  parties,  for  the  purpose  of  conciliation,  but  in  vain.  The  matter  came 
at  last  to  active  contest.  In  B.  C.  171,  Antiochus  met  the  forces  of  the 
Egyptian  king,  between  Pelusium  and  the  Casian  mountain,  and  routed 
them.  In  B.  C.  170,  the  contest  was  again  renewed,  but  with  the  like 
results.  Hence  the  declaration  of  the  text :  Overwhelming  forces  shall  be 
overwhelmed  before  him.  —  C)BlB!ri ,  lit.  of  overwhelming,  employed  to  qualify 
the  preceding  noun,  §  104. 1;  the  article  stands,  as  often,  before  the  noun 
as  abstract,  §  107.  Note  1.  c.  —  TO1B1]1} ,  lit.  shall  be  shivered,  being  a  word 
that  is  sometimes  employed  to  designate  total  or  utter  destruction,  and 
sometimes  an  entire  frustration  or  overthrow  of  purposes  or  designs. 
The  imagery  is  borrowed  from  the  dashing  in  pieces  of  an  earthen  ves 
sel  of  pottery.  —  And  even  a  covenanted  Prince  [shall  be  broken  in  pieces] ; 
for  "Qis1?  is  unquestionably  implied  in  this  case.  —  rvnsi  T^j)?,  not  the 
high-priest,  Onias,  the  prince  of  the  Jewish  covenant,  as  Rosenm.  main 
tains,  for  then  rrnaft  would  of  course  be  employed.  rH"ia  is  designed  for 
a  mere  adjective  of  quality  or  condition  here,  and  so  the  article  is  omit- 


CHAP.  XL  23,  24.  843 

ted,  as  it  more  generally  is  in  such  cases.  The  design  of  the  speaker  is, 
to  render  the  description  of  overwhelming  battle  more  intensive  by  add 
ing  the  circumstance,  that  it  was  with  a  prince  who  had  a  covenant  or 
treaty  of  amity  with  the  conquering  king.  —  Ml.  implies  accession,  ad 
vance,  in  description.  For  the  like  modes  of  expression,  see  Gen.  14:  13. 
Neh.  6:  18.  Obad.  v.  7.  If  Rosenm.  be  in  the  right,  the  order  of  time 
would  be  inverted,  and  a  mfHpQff  TZQOTSQOV  must  consequently  be  admit 
ted  in  the  course  of  the  narration  ;  which  is  improbable. 

(23)  And  from  the  time  of  connecting  himself  with  him  [or  of  joining  himself  to 
him],  he  will  practise  deceit,  and  he  will  go  up,  and  prevail  with  a  small  company. 

Usually  "jo  drops  the  •)  and  is  united  with  the  following  word,  when 
the  latter  has  no  article  ;  but  occasionally  it  is  retained  in  some  other  cases, 
e.  g.  in  Ps.  18:  4,  49.  2  Sam.  22:  14,  Joel  1:  12,  and  so  here.  —  nnannn  , 
an  Inf.  nominascens  of  Hithp.,  constructed  after  the  manner  of  Aramaean 
Infinitives,  i.e.  with  n*i  —  added  to  the  ground  form.  After  the  battle 
near  Pelusium,  Antiochus  made  a  league  with  Ptolemy,  under  pretence 
of  guarantying  to  him  his  kingly  rights  and  claims  ;  his  real  object  how 
ever  was,  to  get  possession  of  all  Egypt.  To  do  this  peaceably,  he  took 
with  him  only  a  small  army,  rightly  suspecting  that  but  little  resistance 
would  be  made  to  a  force  insignificant  with  regard  to  strength.  He  took 
possession  of  Memphis,  the  old  capital  ;  thence  he  went  with  his  fleet  to 
Naucratis,  (at  one  of  the  mouths  of  the  Nile),  and  afterward  encamped,  in 
hostile  attitude,  before  Alexandria.  Here,  as  we  shall  see,  his  progress 
was  arrested.  —  fibs  is  often  employed  to  designate  a  march  to  a  country 
with  hostile  designs.  —  ifa  ,  not  merely  nation,  but  any  body  of  people, 
as  soldiers,  servants,  etc. 

(24)  Quietly  shall  he  come  upon  the  richest  provinces,  and  he  shall  do  what  nei 
ther  his  fathers,  nor  his  fathers'  fathers  did,  plunder  and  spoil,  and  wealth  shall  he 
distribute  to  them,  and  against  fortified  places  will  he  form  devices,  even  unto  a  lim 
ited  time. 


is  transferred  to  the  preceding  verse  by  Leng.,  and  Rosenm. 
translates  it  a  friendly  land.  There  is  no  need  of  either  expedient.  The 
word  means  a  state  of  tranquillity.  Joined  with  what  follows,  it  seems 
to  show,  that  Antiochus  contrived  to  come  upon  the  richest  provinces, 
before  their  fears  had  disturbed  them,  or  caused  any  excitement  among 
them.  Perhaps  the  idea  is  simply  :  with  peaceable  pretensions,  -n^E  > 
being  of  the  singular,  must  be  understood  generically,  =  each  province. 
—  Do  what  neither  his  fathers,  etc.,  have  done,  i.  e.  take  possession  of  a 
whole  country  with  a  few  soldiers  and  by  crafty  policy.  —  Dnb  >  t°  them, 
to  whom  ?  To  the  rich  provinces,  says  Lengerke  ;  which  is  at  least 


344  CHAP.  XL  25. 

highly  improbable.  It  was  not  his  object  to  make  the  rich  more  rich. 
Others  take  cr6  as  the  Dat.  posses.,  indicating  to  whom  the  wealth,  etc., 
belonged ;  in  which  case  it  should  either  have  iii|{*  before  it,  or  else 
stand  before  the  nouns.  Maurer :  "  Ad  milites  Antiochi  referendum  esse, 
sole  clarius ;"  in  which  light  it  appears  to  me.  ^ia  of  the  preceding  verse 
is  the  true  antecedent.  —  Form  devices  against  fortified  places  ;  it  was 
the  richest  places,  those  where  plunder  was  to  be  had,  that  Antiochus 
had  thus  far  got  within  his  grasp.  The  strongly  fortified  ones  still  held 
out  for  Ptolemy.  Against  these  Antiochus  now  formed  designs.  — 
n?"*!? ,  designates  a  limited  time  ;  for  the  speaker  throughout  keeps  in 
sight  the  decrees  of  Heaven,  beyond  which  men  cannot  go. 

(25)  And  he  shall  rouse  up  his  force  and  his  courage  against  the  king  of  the  South, 
with  a  great  army ;  and  the  king  of  the  South  shall  be  roused  up  to  contest  with  an 
army  great  and  very  powerful,  but  he  shall  not  stand,  for  they  shall  form  devices 
against  him. 

There  is  some  difficulty  here,  as  to  the  order  of  relation.  Lengerke 
supposes  vs.  23,  24,  to  mention  what  took  place  in  169  B.  C.,  and  that 
v.  25  seq.  is  a  resumption  of  what  is  said  in  v.  22,  and  an  account  of  what 
took  place  in  171, 170  B.  C.  In  a  war  which  was  so  often  renewed,  and 
interrupted  by  pacificatory  truces  or  leagues,  and  which  continued  for 
several  years,  at  least  parts  of  years,  in  succession,  it  is  hardly  to  be 
supposed  that  the  speaker  means  minutely  to  arrange  in  order  the  chro 
nology  of  events.  The  effort  to  get  quiet  possession  of  Egypt  by  employing 
only  a  few  soldiers,  and  thus  not  exciting  any  military  alarm,  as  pre 
sented  in  v.  23,  is  no  contradiction  to  the  great  army  mentioned  in  the 
verse  before  us.  The  two  passages  are  an  account  of  what  took  place  at 
different  times  and  under  different  circumstances.  As  the  histories  of 
Antiochus  are  confessedly  imperfect,  instead  of  an  effort  to  obtain  from 
them  the  exact  order  of  events,  (which  is  vain),  I  prefer  following  the 
statement  of  the  text ;  and  I  regard  v.  22  as  a  kind  of  summary  introduc 
tion  to  what  follows.  The  preceding  verse  informs  us,  that  Antiochus  was 
meditating  designs  against  the  fortified  places  of  Egypt,  i.  e.  to  make  a 
military  seizure  of  the  whole  kingdom.  The  present  one  shows  that  he 
had  determined  to  execute  those  designs.  —  inb ,  his  force,  i.  e.  his  military 
force  ;  or  does  it  mean  rousing  up  his  own  energy  ?  I  incline  to  the  latter, 
because  his  army  is  mentioned  at  the  end  of  the  clause.  It  saves  repetition. 
innb ,  his  heart,  i.  e.  courage  to  engage  in  the  contest.  —  With  a  great 
army,  which  of  course  is  entirely  a  different  case  from  the  one  above, 
where  he  goes  only  iia  051221  —  STnary; ,  Hithp.  of  rna ,  to  enter  into  contest, 
or  to  rouse  up,  here  in  the  latter  sense,  because  of  nnnbab  .  The  article 
in  the  latter  word  points  to  the  warfare  already  indicated  by  the  first 


CHAP.  XL  26—28.  345 

clause.  —  He  shall  not  stand,  i.  e.  the  king  of  the  South,  who  is  the  agent 
that  next  precedes.  They  shall  form  devices  against  him,  where  they 
of  course  means  an  opposing  party,  or  else,  (which  is  the  more  probable), 
the  Syrians  in  connection  with  some  of  his  own  courtiers  who  were  cor 
rupted  by  bribes.  The  3d  plur.  verb  might  therefore  be  rendered  pas 
sively  :  Devices  shall  be  formed,  etc.  The  next  verse  seems  plainly  to 
confirm  this  view  of  the  matter. 

(26)  And  those  who  eat  of  his  own  choice  food  shall  crush  him,  and  his  army 
shall  rush  impetuously  on,  and  many  shall  fall  down  wounded. 

Probably  those  who  eat  of  his  choice  food  means  Lennaeus  and  Eulaeus, 
the  guardians  and  state-ministers  of  the  young  Ptolemy.  —  Wiiac*]  is  to 
be  taken  in  a  modified  sense.  His  treacherous  guardians  did  not  literally 
destroy  him,  but  they  ruined  his  purposes  or  designs  as  to  opposing  An- 
tiochus.  —  His  army,  i.  e.  that  of  Ptolemy,  who  is  the  nearest  agent 
named.  —  ^fa^  >  rush  on  like  a  flood,  i.  e.  madly,  or  impetuously,  to 
danger  or  ruin.  So  in  Jer.  8:  6,  in  respect  to  the  horse  which  rushes 
impetuously  and  inconsiderately  into  the  battle,  not  to  victory  as  the 
context  shows,  but  to  destruction.  So  in  the  present  case.  The  sequel 
of  the  verse  shows  the  consequence  of  their  impetuous  rushing.  — 
of  itself  means  nothing  more  than  wounded,  but  in  connection  with 
it  designates  mortally  wounded. 

(27)  As  to  those  two  kings,  their  intention  is  to  do  mischief;  at  one  table  do  they 
utter  falsehood.    But  it  will  not  succeed,  for  the  end  is  still  at  the  appointed  time. 


B!rrrd!|,  lit.  and  the  two  of  them  —  they  two;  after  which  follows  the 
explanatory  trabstt  ,  being  put  in  apposition.  Both  are  in  the  Nom.  abs., 
and  so  are  they  translated  above.  —  SHE  ,  derivate  of  ssn  ,  a  kind  of  Inf. 
noun,  (like  the  Aramaean  Inf.),  see  §  84.  II.  14.  We  might  translate 
for  the  doing  of  evil.  Final  Qamets  because  of  the  pause-accent.  —  At 
one  table  designates  the  dissembled  amity  and  intimacy  of  the  parties, 
who  did  and  said  all  that  they  could  in  order  to  mislead  each  other.  — 
It  will  not  succeed,  nBan  xbl  ,  fern,  impersonal  =  there  shall  not  be 
success,  namely,  to  the  falsehood  which  they  utter.  Qamets  in  pause. 
The  reason  of  failure  follows.  The  end,  viz.  of  the  contest  in  which  they 
are  engaged,  is  not  to  be  brought  about  by  their  wishes,  devices,  or  de 
ceit,  but  Providence  has  a  ns'ia  for  it,  i.  e.  an  appointed  or  determined 
time,  which  all  their  craftiness  cannot  change.  As  a  recognized  time  it 
takes  the  article.  Here,  as  throughout,  the  hand  of  an  overruling  power 
is  distinctly  recognized. 

.    (28)  And  he  shall  return  to  his  land  with  great  wealth;  and  his  mind  shall  be 


346  CHAP.  XL  29,  30. 

against  the  holy  covenant,  and  he  shall  accomplish  [his  purpose],  and  shall  return 
to  his  land. 

As  to  the  spoils  or  wealth  which  Antiochus  carried  back  to  Syria,  see 
1  Mace.  1:  19  seq.,  shape  ra  cxvka  rfjg  Alyvniw.  —  iznp  n^a  b?,  lit. 
against  the  covenant  of  holiness.  We  might,  perhaps,  expect  £"?p!~i  ,  just 
as  we  have  ^astn  "piK  in  v.  16.  But  first,  abstract  nouns  are  continually 
varying  in  respect  to  the  insertion  or  omission  of  the  article  ;  and  secondly, 
tti'ipn  would  naturally  designate  the  holy  place,  which  is  not  the  design 
of  the  speaker.  Holiness  is  a  quality  here,  which  makes  an  adjective  for 
tvna,  §  104.  1.  The  holy  covenant  here  stands  for  the  people  who  have 
entered  into  that  covenant,  i.  e.  the  Hebrews.  For  an  account  of  the 
hostile  visit  of  Antiochus  to  Jerusalem,  see  1  Mace.  1:  20  seq. 

(29)  At  the  appointed  time  shall  he  again  invade  the  South  :  but  the  latter  time 
shall  not  be  like  the  former. 

The  isi»  here  is  probably  the  same  which  is  mentioned  in  v.  27  ; 
hence  the  article.  When  the  time  to  bring  the  controversy  between  the 
two  kings  to  an  end  shall  come,  he  will  invade,  etc.  —  n^  merely  de 
notes  repetition  here  of  the  action  designated  by  the  verb  that  follows  ; 
see  Lex.  —  l5l  n^fin  aftl.  ,  lit.  but  it  shall  not  be,  as  at  the  first  so  at  the 
last.  In  the  version  above,  I  have  abbreviated  the  mode  of  expression, 
in  conformity  with  our  idiom.  The  two  fern,  nouns,  or  rather  adjectives, 
MD'hnx  and  natoao  ,  are  therefore  the  Ace.  of  time.  We  have  no  need, 
then,  with  Lengerke,  to  account  for  the  omission  of  a  before  them.  The 
meaning  is,  that  Antiochus  shall  no  more  be  successful,  as  in  former 
times. 

(30)  And  there  shall  come  against  him  the  ships  of  Chittim,  and  he  shall  be  dis 
heartened,  and  he  shall  return,  and  rage  against  the  holy  covenant,  and  accomplish 
[his  purpose]  ;  and  again  shall  he  have  an  understanding  with  those  who  forsake 
the  holy  covenant. 


x  ,  ships  ;  fiin3  ,  properly  Chittaei,  i.  e.  inhabitants  of  Citium,  the 
capital  of  Cyprus.  Hence  the  word  sometimes  stands  for  the  island 
itself,  and  sometimes  (like  t^x)  for  the  sea-coast  countries,  or  the  West 
generally.  Josephus  (Antiq.  1.  6.  1)  says:  "All  the  islands,  and  most 
of  the  maritime  coasts,  are  named  Xedlp  (ta^FiS)  by  the  Hebrews."  In 
respect  to  this  last  contest  of  Antiochus  with  Egypt,  the  two  brothers 
there,  Ptolemy  Philometor  and  Euergetes,  both  suspecting  and  fearing 
Antiochus,  agreed  on  a  joint-sovereignty,  and  a  union  against  him. 
They  sent  for  help  to  Rome  ;  and  when  the  consul  Aemilius  Paulus  had 
finally  conquered  Macedonia  then  under  Perseus,  the  Romans  dispatched 
the  Macedonian  fleet  to  Alexandria,  with  three  ambassadors  to  Anti- 


CHAP.  XI.  31.  347 

ochus,  in  order  to  enjoin  peace.  Caius  Popilius,  who  was  the  head  of 
the  embassy,  with  his  colleagues,  met  Antiochus  near  Alexandria,  and 
tendered  to  him,  before  salutation,  the  decree  of  the  Roman  Senate, 
which  enjoined  upon  him  to  desist  and  return.  Antiochus  took  and  read 
it,  and  replied,  that  he  would  consult  with  his  friends  what  he  should  do. 
Popilius  then  drew  a  circle  around  him  in  the  sand,  with  his  staff,  and 
told  him  that  he  must  give  a  final  answer,  before  he  left  that  circle. 
Antiochus  astonished  and  intimidated,  assented  to  the  Romish  decree, 
and  bound  himself  to  obedience.  Popilius,  who,  although  familiar  with 
Antiochus  while  he  was  at  Rome  as  a  hostage,  had  before  refused  to  give 
him  his  hand,  now  courteously  saluted  him,  as  did  also  his  colleagues. 
No  wonder  that  he  went  back  enraged,  as  our  text  declares.  For  some 
reason  he  owed  the  Jews  a  peculiar  grudge ;  he,  therefore,  on  his  way 
home,  sent  a  detachment  to  pillage  Jerusalem  under  Apollonius.  The 
excesses  which  they  committed,  are  related  in  1  Mace.  1:  30  seq. — 
tti'i'p  rn^2  as  in  v.  28.  —  fnas  has  an  implied  complement  in  the  meaning 
of  the  preceding  cst ,  i.  e.  he  carried  out  or  executed  the  promptings  of 
his  anger,  or  faix"}  may  be  supplied,  (as  in  the  version),  which  comes  to 
the  same  thing.  —  aiBl ,  before  ",5^ ,  seems  to  mean  again.  A  return  to 
Syria  would  here  be  inapposite.  To  have  an  understanding,  etc.,  again, 
implies  a  former  transaction  of  a  similar  nature ;  and  this  is  mentioned 
in  v.  28.  —  rP"Q  ^ats  designates  apostates  from  Judaism,  see  vs.  32,  33, 
also  9:  27,  and  1  Mace.  1:  11  seq.  A  considerable  party  from  the  first, 
had  labored  to  introduce  heathenism.  In  v.  32  they  are  called  isifcj'rg 
rvnn  very  significantly,  i.  e.  apostates  from  the  covenant. 

(31)  And  forces  from  him  shall  stand  up,  and  they  shall  profane  the  sanctuary, 
the  strong  place,  and  they  shall  remove  the  perpetual  offering,  and  set  up  the  abomi 
nation  that  maketh  desolate. 

135373  ,from  him,  refers  to  the  detachment  mentioned  above,  under  Apol 
lonius.  1*1335?  designates  the  taking  of  a  position  ready  for  active  effort, 
in  opposition  to  sitting  which  is  the  attitude  of  quiet  and  remission. 
1  Mace.  i.  gives  a  full  account  of  all  the  shocking  deeds  of  Antiochus. 

—  tisBtn ,  the  stronghold,  should  be  compared  with  nvaa  high-places,  so 
often  designated  as  the  locality  of  temples.     There  was  a  fort  and  a  gar 
rison  attached  to  the  temple-grounds ;  and  this  Antiochus  took  possession 
of.     Hence  the  strong-hold.     It  is  doubtless  mentioned,  because  of  the 
peculiar  annoyance  which  this  enabled  the  tyrant  to  give  to  the  temple- 
service  and  the  worshippers.     So  1  Mace.  1:  37,  "And  they  shed  inno 
cent  blood  round  about  the  sanctuary,  and  they  defiled  the  sanctuary." 

—  Remove  the  perpetual  offering;  comp.  8:  11,  13.  9:  27.  12:  11;  and 


348  CHAP.  XI.  32. 


for  the  facts,  see  1  Mace.  1:  45  seq.  —  dpiiift  "pp^n,  I  take  in  substan 
tially  the  same  sense  as  in  the  controverted  tffiiaa  d'WptB  Cjas  b?  in  9: 
27.  But  in  this  last  passage,  the  plural  designates  idol-abominations  , 
and  serves  merely  as  an  adjective  to  C]23  ,  while  trefcitt  ,  ^e  desolator, 
probably  designates  the  image  of  Jupiter  Olympius,  which  stood  over 
the  eagle  with  out-spread  wings  at  its  feet.  In  the  passage  before  us, 
•ppisn  means,  as  I  apprehend,  the  abomination  or  abominable  idol,  i.  e. 
the  image  of  Jupiter,  which,  being  placed  near  the  altar  on  which  sacri 
fices  to  that  heathen  divinity  were  offered,  made  the  sanctuary  desolate, 
as  to  all  true  worshippers  and  legal  sacrifices  and  rites.  None  but  apos 
tate  Jews  would  frequent  such  a  place.  See  the  graphic  history  of  this, 
in  1  Mace.  1:  37  seq.  The  article  is  here  appropriately  employed,  in 
asmuch  as  8:  13  and  9:  27  had  already  made  the  reader  familiar  with 
the  abomination  now  adverted  to.  What  is  ascribed  to  fipistt  here  is, 
in  9:  27,  ascribed  to  the  bird  of  abominations  in  connection  with  the  image 
standing  over  it.  The  article  might  be  employed  before  waton  ,  because 
it  is  a  renewed  mention  of  the  word  ;  but  if  the  speaker  meant  not  so 
much  to  point  out  here  an  individual  image  to  which  this  name  was 
appropriately  and  peculiarly  given,  as  to  designate  the  kind  of  quality  it 
possessed,  or  agency  which  belonged  to  it,  i.  e.  the  causing  of  desolations, 
the  article  might  well  be  omitted.  To  translate  by  the  abomination  of 
the  desolator,  i.  e.  of  Antiochus,  is  out  of  question  ;  for  the  construct  state 
does  not  admit  the  article  before  it.  The  law  in  respect  to  the  participles 
having  the  article  prefixed,  is  not  equally  stringent.  If  however  *nsx  be 
supplied,  (and  in  cases  almost  without  number  it  is  merely  implied  and 
not  expressed),  then  raatoa  without  the  article  would  be  the  normal  con 
struction,  inasmuch  as  the  word  is  then  a  predicate  of  a  relative  clause. 

(32)  And  the  violators  of  covenant  shall  he  render  impious  by  flatteries  ;  but  the 
people  who  know  their  God  shall  wax  strong  and  do  prosperously. 


d"i32  ,  transgressors  or  violators  of  covenant  ;  what  covenant  ? 
If  simply  the  holy  covenant  were  intended  here,  should  we  not  have 
tth'p  rvna  ,  as  above  in  vs.  28,  30  ?  Or,  at  all  events,  as  it  would  seem, 
M^an  ,  that  is,  with  the  article  appended.  But  as  we  have  neither  of 
these,  we  may  presume  that  the  speaker  meant  to  be  understood  in  a 
generic  way,  without  nicely  defining  the  whole  class  as  such  ;  which  last 
would  also  demand  the  article  between  the  two  words.  I  take  the  mean 
ing  to  be  covenant-violators,  where  the  word  covenant  designates  a  quality 
or  rather  characteristic  of  the  '^'Wia  .  We  say  familiarly,  covenant- 
breakers  ;  and  so  the  Hebrews.  As  these,  however,  are  here  placed  in 
contrast  with  W^N:  ^y^  in  the  sequel,  it  must  include  the  violators  of 


CHAP.  XL  33,  34.  349 

the  holy  covenant.  But  the  expression  would  seem  not  to  be  limited 
merely  to  the  holy  covenant,  but,  inasmuch  as  the  apostate  Jews  who 
joined  with  Antiochus,  not  only  broke  the  covenant  of  the  Hebrews, 
but  also  the  covenant  with  Egypt,  which  had  been  in  existence  more 
than  a  century,  it  designates  this  characteristic  also.  Hence  the  omission 
of  the  article  in  order  to  give  latitude  to  the  expression.  Comp.  ^PM 
rvna ,  in  v.  22  above.  —  Antiochus  flattered,  as  usual,  the  Jewish  party 
who  favored  him,  and  thus  prepared  them  for  all  the  impieties  of  the 
heathen,  tprp.  —  i"^**  with  sing,  suff.,  because  it  .relates  tons.  I 
have  translated  it  by  the  plural,  because  its  antecedent  is  a  noun  of  mul 
titude.  By  those  who  know  God  is  meant  Mattathias  and  his  party,  as 
described  in  1  Mace.  ii. ;  who  resisted  the  decrees  of  Antiochus  with 
success,  for  awhile,  and  were  joined  by  many  of  the  pious  Jews.  —  ^y*} 
denotes  the  success  which  attended  their  first  efforts,  the  verb,  as  usual 
in  this  book,  being  a  constructio  praegnans.  —  ^pftt?  designates  the  acces 
sions  that  were  made,  and  the  strength  thus  acquired  by  the  party  of 
the  pious. 

(33)  And  the  wise  of  the  people  will  give  instruction  to  many,  but  they  shall  fall 
by  sword,  and  by  flame,  by  exile,  and  by  plunder,  for  some  time. 

The  wise  of  the  people  here  means  those  who  are  intelligent  in  matters 
of  religion.  Wisdom,  in  the  scriptural  idiom,  often  means  the  true  know 
ledge  of  God.  —  B^b ,  with  the  article,  the  many,  has  reference  to  the 
strength  of  the  party  (which  implies  considerable  numbers)  who  are 
said  to  know  God,  in  v.  32 ;  or  it  may  mean  the  mass  of  the  people,  the 
01  7ioM.ol.  Mattathias  and  his  sons  used  great  efforts  to  enlighten  those, 
who  attached  themselves  to  the  cause  which  they  espoused.  Persecution 
of  course  followed,  on  the  part  of  Antiochus,  in  all  the  various  ways  here 
mentioned.  —  S'nna  without  the  article,  and  so  of  the  following  nouns. 
In  such  cases,  usage  is  divided  between  admitting  and  rejecting  it.  — 
dia^i  ,  as  before,  a  moderate  undefined  period  of  time. 

(34)  And  when  they  shall  fall,  they  will  be  aided  by  a  little  help,  and  many  will 
join  themselves  to  them  with  flattering  pretences. 

When  persecution  was  going  on  with  severity,  a  spirit  of  opposition 
to  it  was  of  course  awakened  among  the  people,  and  many  were  moved 
to  join  the  party  of  Judas  Maccabaeus  and  his  brethren.  But  among 
these  were  not  a  few  who  acted  hypocritically,  desirous  of  saving  their 
credit  as  zealous  Jews,  but  ready  to  desert  when  danger  pressed  hard 
upon  them.  Mattathias  punished  severely  the  apostate  Jews  (1  Mace. 
2:  44),  as  did  also  Judas  (1  Mace.  3: 5—8)  ;  and  of  course  many  through 

30 


350  CHAP.  XI.  35—37. 

fear  would  dissemble  before  them,  who  still  would  not  abide  by  them  in 
the  hour  of  trial. 

(35)  And  some  of  the  wise  shall  fall,  to  make  trial  of  them,  to  purify,  and  to 
cleanse,  unto  the  time  of  the  end  ;  for  it  will  yet  be  at  the  appointed  time. 

IB  partitive,  as  often  before  =  some  of.  In  the  three  verbs  in  the 
Inf.,  there  is  a  gradation  of  meaning,  ppix  is  properly  applied  to  the 
smelting  of  silver  ore ;  Tia  to  purifying  it  from  the  dross ;  and  "jabb 
(Hiph.  for  IS^nb)  to  whitening  the  metal  and  freeing  it  from  all  specks. 
The  tropical  meaning  is  obvious.  —  tna ,  who  ?  the  wise,  or  the  D^sn  ?  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  nature  of  the  case  decides  for  the  latter.  Here  is 
a  large  accession  to  the  party  of  the  pious.  Some  of  them  are  hypocrites. 
Persecution  puts  them  to  the  test.  Such  among  them  as  are  true-hearted, 
are  purified  and  shine  brighter ;  such  as  are  not,  become  known  by  their 
shrinking  from  trials.  —  taro  Inf.  Piel.  —  Time  of  the  end  means  the  end 
of  Antiochus'  reign  or  life.  The  end,  however,  is  not  to  come  immedi 
ately  after  the  success  of  the  pious  party,  alluded  to  in  vs.  33,  34  ;  but 
still,  it  will  come  at  a  time  appointed  (isi^a)  by  an  overruling  Provi 
dence.  The  pious  may  be  assured,  that  the  evils  in  question  will  not 
go  beyond  this  set  time. 

(36)  And  the  king  shall  do  according  to  his  will,  and  he  will  exalt  and  magnify 
himself  above  every  god ;  and  against  the  God  of  gods  will  he  speak  wonderfully  ; 
and  he  will  prosper  until  the  indignation  is  completed,  for  that  which  is  decreed  will 
surely  be  done. 

The  king  is  of  course  Antiochus,  pointed  out  in  the  preceding  con 
text.  The  next  verse  shows  that  he  had  no  regard  to  his  country's 
gods ;  and  his  whole  course  of  life,  his  plundering  the  temple  at  Jerusa 
lem,  and  finally  in  Elymais,  show  the  reckless  and  impious  character  of 
the  tyrant. —  The  God  of  gods  is  the  supreme  God,  i.  e.  Jehovah.  How 
striking  the  traits  of  Antiochus  as  to  haughtiness  and  Uasphemy  were, 
may  be  seen  by  comparing?:  8,  11,  25.  8:  25.  —  rnxbfis,  participial  plur. 
fern,  used  adverbially,  §  98.  2.  c.  Wonder  or  surprise,  arising  from  the 
singularity  or  strangeness  of  any  thing,  are  expressed  by  this  Hebrew 
word.  —  nrftass ,  Niph.  Praet.,  thus  indicating  the  certainty  of  the  event 
decreed,  §  124.  4. —  The  accomplishment  of  indignation  means  the  in 
dignation  of  God  against  the  apostatizing  and  heathenish  Jews. 

(37)  To  the  gods  of  his  fathers  will  he  have  no  respect,  nor  to  the  delight  of 
women ;  to  no  god  will  he  have  any  respect,  but  he  will  magnify  himself  above 
all. 

•pa1* ,  when  it  means  attend  to  or  pay  regard  to  anything,  may  take 


CHAP.  XL  37.  351 

Vs;  or  b?  after  it,  which,  specially  in  the  later  Hebrew,  are  often  coin 
cident  in  meaning.  See  Lex.  under  Kal  of  "pa  .  The  intimation  here 
given,  of  disregarding  the  gods  of  his  fathers,  shows  that  the  previous 
Grecian  kings  of  Syria  had  adopted  the  gods  of  the  Syrian  nation  ; 
while  Antiochus,  who  had  lived  some  years  at  Rome,  had  learned  to 
despise  the  Syrian  gods,  and  to  prefer  the  Jupiter  Olympius  and  Xenios 
of  the  Romans  and  Greeks.  The  establishment  at  Jerusalem  of  the 
worship  of  the  first,  and  at  Samaria  of  the  second,  shows  that  Antiochus 
was  ambitious  at  times  of  imitating  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  That  he 
did  not  regard  the  Syrian  gods,  seems  to  be  implied  in  1  Mace.  1:  41 
seq.,  where  it  is  said,  that  "  Antiochus  wrote  to  all  his  kingdom,  that 
they  should  be  one  people  ;  and  that  each  one  should  forsake  its  cus 
toms,"  in  order  to  accomplish  this.  The  passage  has  a  special  respect  to 
religion.  —  a^33  rfl^n  ,  in  this  connection,  where  the  objects  of  religious 
veneration  or  contempt  are  spoken  of,  very  clearly  seems  to  mean  the 
famous  goddess  of  the  Syrians,  Astarte  or  Ashtoreth.  Both  names  come 
from  the  old  Persian  julju*,  (start)  the  fern,  form  of  the  word  star  or 


«star=  our  English  star,  and  are  only  different  modes  of  pronouncing  the 
same  word.  This  female  deity,  under  different  names,  was  worshipped  in 
Africa,  Syria,  Phenicia,  Cyprus,  Greece,  Rome,  Babylonia,  Persia,  and 
some  other  countries.  The  Mylitta  (=Heb.  Fi^fo  ,  generatrix)  of  the  East 
was  the  Venus  of  the  West,  the  Neith  of  Egypt,  the  Astarte  of  the  Syri 
ans,  the  Anais  or  Anaitis  of  the  Armenians  ;  all  uniting  in  the  worship 
of  the  power  who  represented  maternal  productiveness.  In  different  coun 
tries,  some  of  the  rites  were  different  ;  but  there  seems  to  have  been  an 
extensive  agreement,  in  the  shocking  practice  of  obliging  every  virgin 
to  sacrifice  her  chastity,  as  the  most  acceptable  offering  to  such  a  god 
dess.  Herodotus  speaks  with  disgust  of  this,  as  practised  at  Babylon, 

1.199.     In  Syriac  the  name  is  written    >Vs«  A  TY?V  .  i.  e.  r.tngiaa  .     By 

turning  to  Jer.  7:  18.  44:  17,  18,  19,  25,  the  reader  may  see  with 
what  eagerness  the  Heb.  women  engaged  in  the  worship  of  this  queen 
of  heaven,  as  the  goddess  is  there  called.  The  King  of  heaven  was 
Baal=i\\Q  sun.  Syria  seems  to  have  first  brought  forward  this  di 
vinity  ;  at  least,  if  we  may  pay  any  deference  to  the  account  given  by 
Ctesias.  We  may  well  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  worship  of  it  was 
zealously  kept  up  there.  Antiochus,  it  seems,  paid  little  or  no  regard 
to  this  idol,  viz.  Astarte.  Near  the  close  of  his  life,  he  made  an  effort 
to  plunder  the  temple  of  this  same  goddess  (Anaitis)  in  Elymais,  but 
was  repelled  by  a  rising  of  the  people  en  masse,  and  forced  to  fly  in 
disgrace,  soon  after  which  he  died.  In  1  Mace.  6:  1  —  4  is  an  account  of 


352  CHAP.  XL  38,  39. 

this  expedition  ;  and  in  2  Mace.  1:  13  —  16  is  another  account,  in  which 
the  goddess  in  question  is  called  Navaia,  (an  appellative  formed,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  from  Anaitis  by  vulgar  pronunciation.)  All  these  facts 
seem  to  make  clear  this  much  contested  phrase,  D^3  rrtrn  .  The  de 
scription  is  progressive  ;  Antiochus  not  only  despised  the  common  gods 
of  the  Syrians,  but  even  that  divinity  which  most  of  all  was  worshipped 
by  them,  specially  by  females. 

The  third  clause  :  To  no  God  will  he  have  any  respect,  is  designed 
to  go  beyond  either  of  the  preceding  declarations,  which  only  show 
that  Antiochus  paid  no  regard  to  any  of  the  national  Syrian  gods. 
The  third  clause  asserts  that  the  same  was  true  in  respect  to  all  other 
gods.  That  he  set  up  the  worship  of  Jupiter  Olympius  at  Jerusalem, 
and  of  Jupiter  Xenios  at  Samaria,  and  began  to  build  a  most  mag 
nificent  temple  to  Jupiter  Olympius  at  Athens,  and  promised  to  build 
one  to  Jupiter  Capitolinus  in  Antioch  (Liv.  XLI.  20),  only  shows  his 
foolish  ambition  to  imitate  the  Romans,  and  perhaps  to  surpass  them 
in  their  own  way.  It  still  remained  true,  as  the  last  clause  declares, 
that  he  magnified  himself  above  every  [god.] 

(38)  But  to  the  god  of  strong  holds  upon  his  pedestal,  will  he  render  honor,  even 
to  the  god  whom  his  fathers  knew  not  will  lie  render  honor,  with  gold,  and  silver,  and 
precious  stones,  and  costly  things. 


i'E  ,  not  a  proper  name,  (Theodotion  Vulg.  Luther),  but  a  noun 
of  quality  which  serves  as  an  adjective  to  the  preceding  noun.  The 
god  of  strong  holds  is  the  god  who  has  power  over  them  ;  and  as  it  is 
plain,  from  a  comparison  of  the  preceding  verse,  that  Antiochus  over 
looked  his  country's  gods,  and  consequently  that  the  deity  now  in  question 
must  be  some  foreign  war-god  unknown  to  the  Syrians,  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  Jupiter  Capitolinus  is  meant  ;  for  to  him  did  he  under 
take  to  build  a  temple  at  Antioch,  adorned  with  every  species  of 
expensive  ornaments.  —  131  Sftta,  all  four  nouns  that  follow  are  anar 
throus^  although  the  names  of  substances  more  usually  have  the  article, 
§  107,  3.  Rem.  1.  b.  But  in  such  cases  practice  varies.  For  the  sake 
of  show,  the  Syrian  tyrant  most  lavishly  squandered  his  money  in  the 
building  and  adornment  of  temples. 

(39)  And  he  shall  do  (his  will)  in  respect  to  fenced  strong-holds  with  a  strange 
god  ;  whoever  shall  acknowledge  he  will  greatly  honor,  and  he  will  make  them  to 
rule  over  many,  and  land  will  he  distribute  as  a  reward. 

A  difficult  verse,  which  has  occasioned  many  discrepant  interpre 
tations.  Lengerke  makes  the  fenced  strong-holds  to  mean  temples,  and 
the  sentiment  to  be,  that  the  tyrant  will  do  for  temples  and  their  foreign 


CHAP.  XL  39.  353 

gods  the  same  thing  that  v.  38  says  he  will  do  in  respect  to  the  god  of 
strong-holds,  i.  e.  he  will  bestow  many  liberal  presents  upon  them ;  a 
very  improbable  thing,  except  in  a  case  where  his  vanity  was  concerned, 
as  in  the  case  of  building  a  temple  for  Jupiter  at  Athens.  Then  this 
critic  is  obliged  to  supply  n'3  (so)  before  inb2 ,  which  here  seems  to  be 
a  forced  construction.  Continually  in  this  book,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  and  specially  in  chap,  xi.,  we  have  fitos  in  the  sense  of  effecting  or 
accomplishing  one's  wishes  or  designs;  and  this,  in  cases  where  no 
noun  follows  the  verb.  Occasionally  1'a'S")  follows ;  and  this  discloses 
the  true  filling  up  or  complement  of  the  brachylogical  nby .  I  take  the 
word  in  the  same  sense  here.  An  ellipsis  of  so  (ris)  cannot  be  ren 
dered  probable  by  like  examples.  Maurer  interprets  thus :  "  And  so 
shall  he  do  to  fortified  holds  with  a  strange  god,  i.  e.  he  will  enforce 
upon  them  the  worship  of  Jupiter  Capitolinus."  The  so  is  here  to  be 
supplied  by  the  reader ;  but  it  is  too  important  a  word  to  be  omitted. 
I  understand  the  declaration  to  be,  that,  since  Antiochus  exalts  pecu 
liarly  the  god  of  strong-holds,  he  does  this  because  of  his  success  in 
attacking  such  places.  The  strange  god  here  mentioned  means  a  god 
which  differs  from  that  of  Antiochus,  or  at  least  from  the  Syrian  gods ; 
in  other  words,  he  will  conquer  the  fortified  strong-holds  of  foreigners 
who  worship  a  god  different  from  his.  Then  follows  113^  "max  (as  the 
Qeri  reads),  i.  e.  whoever  acknowledges  him,  his  sway,  or  perhaps  his 
war-god,  shall  recieve  much  honor,  nis^  is  used  absolutely  in  2  Sam. 
3:  36.  Ps.  142:  5.  We  might  render,  in  accordance  with  the  Hebrew, 
makes  acknowledgment.  That  he  often  liberally  rewarded  those  who 
attached  themselves  to  his  cause,  there  is  no  doubt.  That  he  bestowed 
the  government  of  provinces  or  cities  on  leading  men  of  this  character, 
there  can  be  no  good  ground  to  doubt.  S^SHa  with  the  article,  as 
twice  before,  meaning  ol  nfaiovsg,  or  the  mass  of  people  within  any 
particular  limits.  That  an  apportionment  of  land  is  mentioned  in  the 
next  clause,  is  explained  by  his  directions  to  Lysias,  one  of  his  generals? 
to  root  out  Israel,  and  divide  their  lands  among  his  friends,  1  Mace.  3: 
32 — 36.  That  his  adherents  were  to  be  thus  rewarded,  seems  to  have 
resulted  from  the  poverty  of  his  treasury  at  the  time  of  making  this 
arrangement ;  which  is  related  in  1  Mace.  3:  29, 

The  clause  with  a  strange  god  is  not  mainly  designed  for  the  de 
scription  of  a  foreign  strong-hold,  but,  while  it  imports  this,  dS1  is  em 
ployed  to  show  that  the  strange  god  is  included  with  the  strong-holds,  in 
regard  to  being  within  the  grasp  of  Antiochus.  Both  fortified  place 
and  strange  god  are  subject  to  his  pleasure ;  see  Lex.  D5? ,  1.  e.,  which 
explains  the  word  by  communio  sortis.  —  "nrraa ,  as  a  reward,  or  in  the 

30* 


354  CHAP.  XL  40. 

way  of  reward;  for  the  meaning  of  the  noun,  comp.  Mic.  3:  11.  Deut. 
23:  19.  For  a  before  a  word  indicating  price,  reward,  see  Lex.  B.  9. 
Our  mode  of  expressing  the  idea,  I  have  given  in  the  version  above. 

(40)  And  at  the  time  of  the  end,  the  King  of  the  South  shall  make  war  with 
him,  and  the  King  of  the  North  shall  rush  forth  like  a  storm  against  him,  with 
chariots,  and  with  horsemen,  and  with  many  ships,  and  he  shall  march  into  coun 
tries,  and  shall  overwhelm  and  pass  onward. 

All  history,  says  Lengerke,  is  silent  respecting  this  last  war  of  Antio- 
chus,  nor  was  he  able  to  command  the  money  and  the  forces  to  carry  it 
on,  specially  in  the  face  of  the  Romans  who  had  forbidden  him  to  in 
termeddle  with  Egypt.  To  the  like  purpose  Maurer ;  and  most  of  the 
earlier  commentators  assign  vs.  40 — 43  to  the  category  of  recapitu 
lation.  They  suppose  a  general  summary  of  the  whole  of  Antiochus' 
reign  to  be  here  introduced,  before  the  conclusion  of  his  history.  This 
is  not  impossible,  inasmuch  as  v.  29  seq.  seems  to  repeat  what  had 
been  said  in  v.  24.  But  I  must  regard  it  as  very  improbable.  The 
repetition  at  so  much  length  here  of  events  so  minutely  related  as  the 
preceding,  is  at  least  inopportune,  and  not  often  the  manner  of  the 
author.  Lengerke  asserts  the  entire  improbability  of  another  and 
fourth  invasion  of  Egypt  and  Palestine,  on  the  ground  that  Antiochus 
was  too  weak  and  too  poor  to  collect  forces  enough  to  carry  on  such  a 
war  with  success.  But  1  Mace.  1:  27  seq.  shows  us,  that  after  An 
tiochus  had  heard  of  the  notable  defeat  by  Judas  of  his  general,  Seron, 
"  he  was  enraged,  and  gathered  together  all  the  forces  of  his  Kingdom 
TTaQSfi^a^v  iG%VQav  aqiodQa,  an  exceedingly  great  encampment."  These 
he  paid  profusely,  while  in  an  attitude  of  preparation  for  active  service, 
and  thus  exhausted  his  treasury,  1  Mace.  1:  28,  29.  To  Lysias,  his 
general,  he  left  one  half  of  his  troops  (1  Mace.  1:  34),  which 
amounted  to  47,000  (v.  39),  with  orders  to  subdue  and  partition  out 
Palestine,  (vs.  35,  36).  Weak,  then,  Antiochus  was  not,  at  that  time. 
It  is  indeed  true,  that  neither  Appian,  nor  Polybius,  nor  Justin,  nor 
Livy,  nor  Josephus,  have  given  us  any  particulars  about  this  latest 
war  of  Antiochus ;  but  who  that  has  read  their  Syrian  histories,  does 
not  know  that  mere  summaries,  scraps,  and  fragments,  are  all  that  re 
main  of  these  writers  in  respect  to  Antiochus  ?  Josephus  depends  on 
1  Mace. ;  and  this  is  mainly  confined  to  the  exploits  of  Judas  and  his 
brethren.  Rosenmueller  very  appositely  remarks  :  "  Caremus  omnino 
integra  aliqua  et  continua  de  rebus  Antiochi  narratione,  quae  a  suae 
aetatis  scriptore  aliquo  fide  digno  literis  sit  mandat."  The  argumentum 
a  silentio,  specially  in  respect  to  ancient  history,  is  far  from  being  cogent 


CHAP.  XL  41.  355 

and  satisfactory.  On  the  other  hand,  the  accuracy  of  the  statements  in 
the  book  of  Daniel,  respecting  the  domain  of  Alexander's  successors, 
is  on  all  hands  admitted  in  other  cases.  Here  it  has  narrated  the 
events  of  an  expedition  in  vs.  40 — 43,  with  its  usual  minuteness,  and 
apparently  in  regular  order.  Why  should  this  testimony  be  rejected  ? 
Nor  does  it  stand  alone.  Jerome  refers  to  Porphyry,  who  wrote  against 
the  book  of  Daniel,  as  saying  with  respect  to  vs.  40 — 43,  that  they 
relate  to  the  last  war  of  Antiochus,  near  the  close  of  his  life.  Jerome's 
words  run  thus  :  "  These  things  Porphyry  refers  to  Antiochus,  because 
(quod)  he  fought,  in  the  eleventh  year  of  his  reign,  against  Ptolemy 
Philometor,  his  sister's  son,  who  having  intelligence  that  Antiochus 
was  coming,  collected  many  thousands  of  troops.  But  Antiochus,  like  a 
mighty  tempest,  with  chariots,  and  horsemen,  and  a  numerous  fleet, 
entered  many  countries,  and  laid  waste  every  thing  as  he  passed  along ; 
and  he  came  to  Judea,  and  fortified  a  tower  there  from  the  ruins  of 
the  city  walls,  and  then  proceeded  to  Egypt."  Let  it  be  remembered, 
that  Jerome  does  not  say  a  word  to  contradict  this  statement,  although  it 
made  for  his  favorite  object  to  do  so  if  he  could,  inasmuch  as  he  might 
then  refer  the  passage  to  his  favorite  Antichrist.  I  do  not  see  why  the 
testimony  of  the  book  before  us,  the  full  confirmation  of  it  by  Por 
phyry,  and  the  apparently  consenting  attitude  of  Jerome,  do  not  place 
the  matter  before  us  fairly  out  of  the  reach  of  destructive  criticism. 

The  time  of  the  end  is  here,  as  repeatedly  before,  the  time  in  which 
the  reign  of  the  tyrant  was  to  come  to  its  end.  It  need  not  be  limited 
to  a  few  days,  or  even  months,  but  cannot  reasonably  be  extended  to  a 
period  far  back  from  the  death  of  Antiochus. — tt^r?n ,  lit.  thrust  at, 
borrowed  from  the  action  of  horned  beasts  in  their  contests.  Tropically, 
to  attack,  make  war  upon. — iSfitoi'i ,  Hithp.  of  nsto ,  with  transposed  to. 
It  is  a  very  expressive  word,  15 to  meaning  tempest,  storm,  n^i^til  , 
read  u-bho-umy-yoth,  for  there  is  no  article  here,  (both  the  preced 
ing  nouns  are  anarthrous),  but  a  is  a  prep,  and  conforms  its  punct 
uation  to  the  Hateph  Qamets  that  follows,  §  28,  2.  §  9,  also  p.  35 
note  2.  The  ships  belonged  to  the  Syrian  fleet. — a  K3 ,  march  into, 
invade. — m's'nxa ,  i.  e.  divers  countries  under  Egyptian  sway,  in  Coele- 
syria  and  Palestine.  Shall  overwhelm  and  pass  onward,  an  image 
borrowed  from  the  overflowing  of  a  mighty  stream,  which  sweeps  away 
every  thing  opposed  to  it. 

(41)  And  he  shall  march  into  the  goodly  land,  and  many  shall  fall,  but  these 
shall  be  delivered  from  his  hand,  Edom,  and  Moab,  and  the  chief  part  of  the  sons 
of  Ammon. 

9  see  on  8:  9.  11:  16.  —  nin1]  plur.  fern,  taken  substantively,  = 


356  CHAP.  XI.  41. 

multitudes.  The  masc.  verb  that  follows  is  simply  constructio  ad  sensum, 
inasmuch  as  multitudes  of  men  are  meant.  —  l^ttj^  does  not  here  so  much 
import  excision  as  defeat,  subjugation.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  this 
last  invasion  of  Palestine,  by  Antiochus,  was  not  of  so  severe  and  bloody 
a  character  as  his  former  ones.  The  reason  is  obvious.  The  country 
was  mainly  subdued,  and  held  in  slavish  subjection  under  his  oppressive 
military  government,  and  he  had  a  large  party  of  heathenish  Jews  in  his 
favor  from  mercenary  and  other  considerations.  The  few  that  still 
resisted  were  overborne  and  prostrated.  In  the  great  battle  with 
Gorgias  (1  Mace.  iv.  B.  C.  165),  Judas  had  but  3000  men,  and  these  but 
ill  equipped,  1  Mace.  4:  6.  The  last  invasion  of  Antiochus,  therefore, 
is  merely  touched  here,  but  not  dwelt  upon,  because  its  effects  could  not 
well  be  compared  with  those  of  former  invasions.  Edom,  and  Moab, 
and  the  chief  part  of  the  sons  of  Ammon,  dwelt  in  the  south,  and 
south-east  of  Palestine,  and  out  of  the  range  of  Antiochus'  direct 
march  to  Egypt.  But  why  are  they  noted  here  ?  The  implication 
seems  to  be,  that  they  then  belonged  to  the  domain  of  Egypt,  and  would 
naturally  have  been  overrun  and  subjugated  by  Antiochus,  had  they 
been  within  the  line  of  his  march.  The  ni:nx ,  some  countries,  of  the 
preceding  verse,  designates  those  countries  subject  to  Egypt,  through 
which  the  Syrian  invader  passed  on  his  march  into  that  country.  There 
seems  to  be  another  implication,  also,  in  what  is  here  said,  viz.  that 
Antiochus,  in  his  former  victorious  expeditions,  had  taken  possession 
of  those  countries,  through  which,  on  the  present  occasion,  he  did  not 
march.  We  can  hardly  see  any  motive  for  particularizing  the  countries 
in  question,  unless  these  circumstances  were  as  they  are  here  supposed 
to  be.  The  countries  of  themselves  were  of  little  significance  in  the 
time  of  Antiochus.  But  if  the  speaker,  on  this  occasion,  is  describing 
an  invasion  by  Antiochus  later  than  the  others  and  different  from  them, 
and  has  added  this  apparently  minute  circumstance  which  we  are  now 
considering,  in  order  to  specificate  and  make  a  distinction,  then  all  is 
not  only  plain  but  also  significant.  Evidence  of  the  attention  of  critics 
to  these  circumstances,  I  have  not  indeed  been  able  to  find ;  but  to  my 
own  mind  they  appear  to  be  important  to  the  explanation  of  the  text. 
How  else  can  we  account  for  such  a  mention  of  the  petty  nations  in 
question  ?  And  indeed,  as  Moab  was  no  more  a  nation  at  the  actual 
time  of  Antiochus,  how  could  a  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  living 
(as  the  Liberalists  will  have  it)  after  the  death  of  Antiochus,  have 
thought  of  inserting  Moab  here  ?  If  he  did,  it  was  from  a  set  purpose 
to  mislead  his  readers  respecting  the  time  in  which  he  lived.  This 
however  does  not  accord  with  the  views  respecting  him,  which  even 


CHAP.  XL  42—44.  357 

Lengerke  professes  to  entertain,  Einl.  z.  Comm.  s.  LXXXV.  seq.  The 
sketch  before  us  exhibits  one  of  those  minute  touches,  which  seem  to 
point  to  the  hand  that  must  have  drawn  it.  —  rviBfiO  does  not  mean  the 
letter  part  in  the  sense  of  larger  portion  (Rosenm.),  but  the  chief  part 
in  the  sense  of  the  leading  or  predominant  part. 

(42)  And  he  shall  thrust  forth  his  hand  against  several  countries,  and  the  land  of 
Egypt  shall  not  escape. 

rnzns ,  some  or  several  countries  ;  like  D^ ,  some  time.  These,  from 
the  order  in  which  they  are  mentioned,  are  different  from  those  in  v.  40, 
and  probably  are  those  countries  lying  on  the  eastern  border  of  Egypt, 
through  which  Antiochus  would  pass  in  his  line  of  march.  —  O^XE ,  as 
a  country,  takes  the  fern,  verb  sing,  after  it.  That  the  invasion  of  Egypt 
was  an  actual  and  a  successful  one  for  a  time,  seems  to  be  indicated  by 
the  next  verse. 

(43)  And  he  shall  rule  over  the  treasures  of  gold  and  silver,  and  over  all  the  costly 
things  of  Egypt,  and  the  Libyans  and  the  Ethiopians  shall  wait  on  his  footsteps. 

The  treasures  of  Egypt  were  doubtless  what  he  was  in  quest  of,  for  he 
was  now  straitened  in  respect  to  money ;  comp.  1  Mace.  3:  29.  —  ^ft-fft 
iSi  with  the  article,  as  is  the  more  common  usage  before  the  names  of 
substances,  §  107.  3.  Remarks,  b.  —  The  Libyans  on  the  northwest,  and 
the  Ethiopians  on  the  South  of  Egypt  were  attached  to  the  Ptolemaean 
dynasty ;  comp.  Ezek.  30:  5.  The  possession  of  Egypt  gave  Antiochus 
dominion  over  those  countries.  — -  T'lSspaa ,  lit.  [shall  be]  in  his  steps,  i.  e. 
shall  follow  on  after  him  as  their  leader. 

(44)  And  with  tidings  from  the  East  and  from  the  North  shall  they  disturb  him, 
and  he  shall  march  forth  in  great  wrath  to  destroy  and  to  lay  waste  many. 

While  Antiochus  was  in  the  attitude  of  inflicting  a  final  blow  upon 
Judea,  tidings  reached  him,  that  the  Farthians  in  the  East,  and  the  Ar 
menians  in  the  North,  had  rebelled  and  refused  to  pay  tribute ;  Tacit. 
V.  8.  Appian.  c.  45.  1  Mace.  3:  37.  Armenia  he  soon  subdued,  and 
marching  thence  to  Elymais,  in  order  to  replenish  his  treasury  by  rob 
bing  temples,  he  there  met  with  a  signal  repulse,  that  was  soon  followed 
by  his  death.  —  As  to  nisnia ,  fern,  plur.,  it  seems  to  be  associated  with 
a  verb  plur.  masculine.  Lengerke  here  accuses  the  writer  of  negligence. 
Does  he  not  know,  that  the  Hebrew  is  susceptible  of  another  translation 
than  that  which  he  gives  it  ?  What  difficulty  in  making  the  noun  the 
Ace.  of  instrumentality,  and  translating  thus :  With  [evil]  tidings  shall 
they  terrify  or  agitate  him,  the  verb  being  the  third  pers.  plur.  with  the 


358  CHAP.  XII.  1. 

indef.  Nom.  ?     I  apprehend  the  true  pointing  however,  to  be  iF&rp^  , 
i.  e.  it  is  a  verb  singular  =  one  shall  terrify  him  =  he  shall  be  terrified. 

(45)  And  he  shall  plant  his  lofty  regal  tent  between  the  sea  and  the  holy  and  beau 
tiful  mountain,  and  he  shall  come  to  his  end,  and  none  shall  help  him. 


X  ,  like  the  Arab,  padan,  means  lofty  palace  ;  suff.  form 
What  the  text  means  is,  that  the  tent  of  Antiochus  was  a  splendid  struc 
ture,  like  that  of  a  palace,  made  lofty  as  the  rallying  point  of  the  whole 
army.  —  &IEP  ,  lit.  seas,  but  the  plural  of  nouns  designating  great  and 
extensive  masses,  is  often  employed  in  preference  to  the  singular,  §  106. 
2.  a.  The  Mediterranean  sea  I  take  to  be  meant  here.  —  The  usual 
construction,  b  .  .  .  ",3  is  here  employed,  as  marking  the  intermediate 
ground  between  two  objects  ;  see  Lex.  b.  A.  2.  —  Beautiful  holy  moun 
tain  is  so  named,  because  that  mountain  is  meant  on  which  the  holy  tem 
ple  was  built,  tti'ip  as  taking  the  place  of  an  adjective,  does  not  well 
admit  the  [article,  [since  of  itself  it  merely  marks  here  an  abstract  quality. 
Omission  of  the  article  before  pure  abstracts,  is  the  predominant,  but  not 
exclusive,  usage  in  Hebrew. 

The  fearful  end  of  Antiochus  is  again  predicted,  as  in  7:  26.  8:  25.  9: 
27.  But  why  is  the  mention  of  Antiochus'  encampment  between  the 
Mediterranean  and  Jerusalem  here  brought  again  to  view,  after  the 
speaker  had  already  followed  him  to  the  East  ?  For  the  purpose  of  im 
pression,  I  should  say,  rather  than  from  any  necessity  of  the  case.  '  Look 
at  the  contrast,'  (the  speaker  would  seem  to  say)  ;  l  now,  Antiochus  en 
camps  in  his  lofty  tent  like  a  palace,  meditating  the  overthrow  of  the  holy 
city  and  temple  ;  next,  we  see  him  in  disgrace  —  and  even  in  the  agonies 
of  death,  stricken  by  an  invisible  and  an  irresistible  hand.'  The  interest 
with  which  a  Hebrew  would  survey  this  picture,  may  be  imagined,  but 
cannot  well  be  described. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

[Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  belongs  to  the 
prophecy  which  precedes.  It  is  not  only  a  continuation  of  the  address  of  the  same 
speaker,  but  evidently  a  sequel  of  the  same  subject.  The  division,  if  made  at  all, 
should  have  been  made  at  the  end  of  12:  3.] 

(  1  )  And  at  the  same  time,  Michael,  the  great  prince  who  protects  the  sons  of  thy 
people,  shall  stand  up,  and  there  shall  be  a  time  of  distress  which  never  was  since  the 
existence  of  any  nation  until  that  period;  and  at  that  time  thy  people  shall  be  de 
livered,  every  one  whose  name  is  found  written  in  the  book  [of  the  living]. 


cannot  well  be  made  to  mean  either  at  some  future  time,  or 
at  some  [indefinite]  time,      sonn  means  that,  that  same  ;   and  when  the 


CHAP.  XIL  1.  359 

question  is  asked :  The  same  as  what  ?  the  answer  of  course  must  be : 
The  same  which  the  preceding  context  has  already  indicated.  Haver- 
nick's  labored  arguments  to  show  that  a  Messianic  period,  i.  e.  either 
before  the  first  or  second  period  of  Christ's  yet  future  coming,  is  meant, 
have  failed  to  make  any  convincing  impression  upon  my  mind,  because  I 
cannot  abandon  the  plain  meaning  of  the  words,  and  accept  of  a  conjec 
tural  interpretation  in  the  room  of  it.  Nor,  when  he  refers  to  Theodoret, 
Calov,  Cocceius,  L'Empereur,  Geier,  and  Roos,  as  being  of  the  same 
opinion,  does  this  satisfy  me.  These  interpreters  applied  the  preceding 
chapter,  at  least  the  latter  portion  of  it,  to  Antichrist  instead  of  Antiochus, 
and  therefore,  consistently  with  their  views,  they  interpreted  the  passage 
before  us  in  a  corresponding  manner.  Not  finding  it  exegeticalty  possible 
for  me  to  take  the  same  course,  I  cannot  follow  them  in  relation  to 
arrtn  nsa  .  The  appeal  to  Matt.  24:  21,  22,  by  Havernick,  gives  as  little 
satisfaction  as  the  preceding  view,  notwithstanding  he  calls  it  entscheidend 
(decisive).  It  remains  yet  to  be  shown,  that  this  passage  does  not  apply 
merely  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.  Hoffman  (Wiir- 
dig.  etc.  s.  313)  finds  fault  with  the  exegesis  which  Havernick  and 
others  of  the  like  opinion  suggest ;  but  he  has  substituted  another  in  its 
room,  which  seems,  at  least  to  me,  to  be  no  better.  He  refers  X^rtf]  rsa 
first  to  the  period  of  Antiochus'  death  ;  and  then  immediately  proceeds 
to  say,  that  what  follows  refers  to  a  period  at  the  close  of  the  history  of 
nations,  i.  e.  to  a  time  of  trouble  and  distress  which  shall  come  at  a  dis 
tant  period  upon  all  nations,  while  the  Jews  shall  be  defended  and  de 
livered  by  their  guardian  angel.  Are  the  Jews  then  to  be  a  separate 
people  to  the  end  of  time  ?  And  this  too,  after  Paul  has  decided  that  un 
der  the  gospel  "  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,"  that  "  there  is  one  and 
the  same  God  of  the  Jew  and  of  the  Gentile,"  and  also  that  "  they  who 
are  of  the  faith,  [whether  Jews  or  Gentiles],  are  the  children  of  Abra 
ham,"  and  Israelites  in  the  true  and  highest  sense.  The  idea  is  inconsistent 
with  that  of  a  truly  Messianic  period.  Besides,  if  we  closely  connect  (as 
we  must)  v.  1  with  its  first  clause,  how  can  the  phrase  at  that  time  fail  to 
designate  the  time  when  the  events  there  described  will  take  place  ? 
But  how  are  they  to  take  place  near  the  time  when  Antiochus  died,  and 
yet  take  place  near  the  end  of  the  world  ?  There  is  an  utter  inconsistency 
in  this.  With  Maurer,  then,  and  Rosenmiiller,  I  follow  the  simple 
grammatical  interpretation ;  and  that  can  have  but  one  meaning,  i.  e. 
that  time  means  the  same  period  mentioned  in  the  preceding  context, 
and  this  is  the  time  at  or  near  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus.  — 
Michael  your  great  prince  ;  this  angel  has  already  been  brought  to  view 
in  10:  21.  The  epithet  great  seems  to  import  one  of  the  rank  of  aQ%- 


360  CHAP.  XII.  2. 

dyyelog,  i.  e.  an  angel  of  superior  rank  or  dignity.  —  bs  iban ,  stand  over, 
designates  an  attitude  of  defending  that  over  which  one  stands ;  or,  which 
is  equivalent,  a  guardianship  over  any  person  or  thing.  Hence  the 
whole  phrase  amounts  simply  to  Michael,  your  guardian  archangel.  The 
meaning  is,  that  when  all  the  distresses  come  upon  the  nation  that  wi|J 
take  place  near  the  period  of  Antiochus'  death,  (for  NTtii  rS2  is  not  a 
strictly  definite  or  limited  period,  although  it  cannot  extend  farther  back 
than  the  context  allows),  then  will  Michael  interpose  and  deliver  the 
Jewish  people,  at  least  all  of  them  who  shall  not  have  been  destroyed 
by  previous  oppression  and  persecution.  —  i"ir^n.5  means  somewhat  more 
than  simply  was.  It  appears  like  the  passive  of  a  Hiphil  =  was  caused 
to  be,  i.  e.  took  place,  happened.  —  rrnrra ,  since  the  being  of,  Inf.  nominasc. 
in  the  const,  state.  —  The  repetition  of  the  words  at  that  time  before  the 
last  clause,  gives  definitiveness  to  the  expression,  making  it  more  spe 
cific.  —  Not  all  of  the  Jews  are  to  escape,  for  many  will  fall  martyrs  to 
the  cause.  That  the  expression  here  is  strong,  and  even  hyperbolic,  is  clear. 
Yet  how  many  hundreds  are  like  it,  in  the  Scriptures  and  in  all  oriental 
writings  !  —  But  all  who  are  found  to  be  recorded  in  the  book  [of  the  liv 
ing],  will  be  saved  by  the  interposition  of  Michael.  —  1B&2  ,  in  the  book, 
i.  e.  in  the  well  known  book  of  life,  or  rather  of  the  living.  The  metaphor 
is  taken  from  city  registers,  where  the  names  of  all  the  citizens  were  en 
rolled  ;  and  as  soon  as  any  man  died,  his  name  was  erased.  The  book 
of  the  living,  therefore,  is  God's  book,  in  which  those  who  are  to  outlive 
the  Antiochian  persecutions  stand  recorded  as  survivors.  Who  will 
escape,  none  knows  but  he  in  whose  book  the  destinies  of  all  are  re 
corded.  That  there  is  an  ellipsis  of  c^n  in  the  text,  is  plain  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  and  from  a  comparison  with  the  passages  in  Ex.  32: 
32.  Isa.  4:  3.  Ps.  56:  8  (9).  69:  28  (29).  In  a  little  different  sense  is 
the  phrase  used  in  Ezek.  13:  9.  Phil.  4:  3.  Rev.  3:  5.  13:  8.  17:  8.  21: 
27.  22:  19.  but  still  in  one  altogether  analogous.  Sentiment :  Be  not 
overwhelmed  with  sorrow,  at  the  prospect  of  times  such  as  those  of  Anti 
ochus  ;  when  they  come,  your  guardian  angel  will  protect  and  save  all, 
whom  the  counsels  of  Heaven  have  determined  shall  escape. 

(2)  And  many  of  those  who  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth,  shall  awake,  some  to 
everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt. 

Our  English  translation,  and  that  which  I  have  given,  runs  thus :  And 
many  of  them  who  sleep  in  the  dust.  But  this  seems  contrary  to  the  ac 
cents,  for  these  join  irn  "\3iB*;o  with  the  verb  ^p? ;  and  the  sense  thus 
given  compares  well  with  the  N.  Test,  tyffato&cu  Ix  VEXQWV,  1  Cor.  15: 
12,  20.  Comp.  John  5:  29.  But  this  is  not  important  as  to  the  general 


CHAP.  XII.  2.  361 


meaning  of  the  clause.  —  As  to  DW  ,  I  cannot  regard  it  as  designed  to 
contrast  with  few,  i.  e.  with  some,  or  a  few,  who  do  not  rise,  but  as  an 
expression  equivalent  to  our  word  multitudes.  Ezekiel,  in  respect  to  the 
valley  of  dry  bones,  says  of  them  when  raised  up  :  lk»-«fcjVvia  ^n  . 
There  is  no  intimation  in  the  context  of  a  party  not  to  be  raised  up. 
d^"}  cannot  mean  the  good  only,  for  all  of  them  are  to  be  restored  to  life 
in  the  way  of  reward,  and  in  order  to  be  made  happy  ;  nor  can  it  mean 
the  evil  only,  for  they  are  raised  up  to  suffer  the  retribution  due  to  them, 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt  ;  which  plainly  is  not  affirmed  of  all. 
In  Rom.  5:  15,  17,  ol  noMoi  is  used  by  Paul  in  the  like  manner  ;  i.  e.  as 
equivalent  to  multitudes,  the  mass.  Leng.  stoutly  denies  the  application 
of  these  last  passages  to  the  present  case.  But  he  first  assumes  an  a  pri 
ori  ground,  by  asserting  that  a  general  resurrection  cannot  be  meant. 
He  says,  that  "  the  whole  spirit  of  the  book,  so  hostile  to  all  other  religions, 
makes'against  the  admission  of  a  general  resurrection."  The  Jews  only, 
he  further  says,  are  represented  by  the  book  before  us,  as  capable  of  such 
a  blessing.  Yet,  under  another  head  of  objections,  he  says,  that  "  the 
author  of  our  book  expected  all  nations  to  be  converted  to  Judaism." 
Where  then  are  those  to  be  found,  who  are  not  Jews  at  the  time  of  the 
resurrection  ?  But  dismissing  this,  who  are  they  that  come  forth  to  the 
resurrection  of  damnation  ?  If  the  Jews  are  all  to  be  saved,  and  the 
heathen  are  not  to  be  raised  up  at  all,  who  are  those  that  are  to  be  raised 
up  to  condemnation  ?  These  questions  force  us  upon  another  and  a  dif 
ferent  exegesis.  —  tibis?  "^nb  ,  frequent  in  the  N.  Test.  ;  but  nowhere  else 
in  the  Old.  It  shows  progress  in  the  clearness  with  which  a  future  state  of 
happiness  was  discerned,  in  the  time  of  Daniel.  —  ni'innb,  plur.  of  intensity, 
sing.  nQ'nn  .  —  "pXT!  >  const,  form  of  'p'S'n'n  ,  aversion,  contempt.  This  also 
is  united  with  dVis  ;  and  with  this  clause  is  to  be  compared  John  5:  29. 
Matt.  25:  46. 

It  should  be  noted,  that  the  softened  word  sleep  is  here  employed  for 
death  ;  an  image  which  could  hardly  become  current,  excepting  among 
those  who  believe  in  a  future  state,  and  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

The  great  and  difficult  question  about  this  passage  is  :  Does  it  relate 
to  a  period  immediately  succeeding  the  death  of  Antiochus,  or  to  a 
subsequent  and  undefined  period?  The  difficulty  which  some  critics 
have  had,  about  conceding  a  belief  in  a  resurrection  to  the  ancient 
Hebrews,  seems  now  to  be  in  the  main  removed.  It  is  conceded,  even 
by  most  of  the  so-called  liberal  critics  that  Is.  26:  18,  19,  to  which  some 
add  Ezek.  37:  1  —  14,  (and  to  which  I  should  be  disposed  to  subjoin 
Ps.  16:  11.  17:  15),  recognize  the  doctrine  in  question.  Daniel  stands  not 
alone,  in  this  respect.  The  allegation  that  this  was  only  a  later  doctrine 

31 


362  CHAP.  XII.  2. 

of  the  Hebrews,  borrowed  from  the  system  of  Zoroaster,  even  Lengerke 
confesses  has  been  refuted  by  Havernick,  in  his  Comm.  s.  509 — 519. 
On  the  question  now  before  us,  in  respect  to  the  application  of  vs.  2,  3, 
in  the  present  chapter,  I  would,  with  diffidence,  make  some  suggestions, 
which  are  the  result  of  my  own  reflections. 

It  seems  to  me,  that  analogy  of  the  prophecy  before  us  with  other 
prophecies  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  may  help  to  satisfy  the  mind  of  an 
inquirer.  In  chap.  ii.  we  have  the  four  monarchies,  which  are  followed 
by  a  fifth  that  is  Messianic,  2:  44,  45.  Immediately  following  the  same 
four  monarchies,  and  after  the  death  of  Antiochus,  the  Messianic  king 
dom  is  predicted  again,  7:  26,  27.  In  chap,  viii.,  the  last  three  king 
doms  out  of  the  four  are  again  described,  and  the  death  of  Antiochus 
is  represented  as  before  ;  while,  in  this  particular  case,  the  vision  goes 
not  beyond  the  death  of  the  same  Antiochus,  (the  little  horn,  8:  9,  25). 
In  the  present  case,  the  analogy  of  the  prophecies  in  chaps,  ii.  vii.  is 
followed  with  the  exception,  that  inasmuch  as  the  vision  took  place  in 
the  third  year  of  Cyrus,  and  of  course  after  the  Babylonish  empire  was 
destroyed,  the  latter  empire  is  omitted.  The  death  of  Antiochus,  and 
the  troubles  of  the  Jews  at  and  near  that  period  (11:  45.  12:  1),  pre 
cede,  as  in  chaps,  ii.  vii.,  the  prophecy  respecting  the  Messianic  king 
dom.  Verses  2  and  3  I  regard,  therefore,  as  having  reference  to  the 
Messianic  period  and  its  ultimate  results.  No  notation  of  time,  how 
ever,  is  here  made,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse.  /.The  pro 
phetic  vision  looks  forward  to  the  distant  future,  but  it  is  undefined  as  to 
any  particular  time.  Just  the  same  is  the  case  in  chap.  7:  27 ;  for  there 
is  simple  prediction  of  events,  without  any  definite  limitation  as  to  the 
time  when  they  will  take  place.  In  2:  44,  however,  there  is  an  indefi 
nite  notation  of  time,  in  passing  to  a  description  of  the  Messianic  king 
dom.  The  words  are,  "fitx  &*:&£  ^  •pfi'vav'S ,  in  the  days  of  those  kings, 
(viz.  of  the  four  kingdoms  before  mentioned),  shall  the  God  of  heaven 
set  up  a  kingdom,  etc.  I  have  said  indefinite  notation  of  time,  because, 
although  strictly  considered  3  would  mean  in,  i.  e.  within  or  during,  yet 
as  merely  the  word  days  is  here  joined  with  it,  there  are  of  course  no 
definite  limits  drawn,  and  the  writer  is  not  confined  to  particular  years. 
It  is  evident,  moreover,  that  if  the  strict  meaning  of  •p'fps'ha  be  urged, 
it  would  bring  the  prophecy  connected  with  it  to  mean,  that  the  Mes 
sianic  kingdom  should  commence  during  the  time  of  the  four  monarchies, 
or  at  all  events  during  the  fourth  monarchy.  This  would  be  contrary 
to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  prophecies  in  chap.  ii.  vii.  and  viii. ;  for 
these  all  represent  the  dynasties  as  successive  and  not  contemporaneous. 
Matter  of  fact  shows  that  such  was  the  case.  Thejifth  kingdom,  there 
fore,  i.  e.  the  Messianic  one,  is  in  like  manner  successive.  But  the  in- 


CHAP.  XII.  2.  363 

tervals  of  time  are  no  where  distinctively  marked,  in  respect  to  the 
succession.  I  am  aware  that  Lengerke  and  some  others  have  strenu 
ously  maintained,  that  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel  expected  the 
Messianic  kingdom  immediately  to  succeed  the  death  of  Antiochus. 
But  how  they  can  insist  on  this,  when  they  date  the  rise  of  the  book 
after  the  death  of  that  tyrant,  I  am  unable  to  see.  Did  the  writer  shut 
his  eyes  against  all  the  signs  of  the  times  ?  for  they  surely  indicated 
nothing  of  this  sort.  And  could  he  rationally  expect  that  others  would 
give  credit  to  such  a  representation,  in  spite  of  those  signs  ?  Both  of 
these  suppositions  are  incredible.  If  an  earlier  writer,  say  in  or  near 
the  time  which  is  usually  regarded  as  the  period  of  Daniel,  could  pre 
dict  all  that  is  related  in  chap,  xi.,  one  may  well  suppose  that  he  might 
know  whether  the  Messianic  kingdom  was  to  follow  in  quick  and  im 
mediate  succession,  or  not. 

The  result  seems  to  be,  that  the  phrase,  in  the  days  of  those  kings, 
like  iv  Ixeivaie  raTg  r]asnaigt  is  a  general  expression  of  a  somewhat  in 
definite  period  of  time,  which  however  is  not  to  be  greatly  extended. 
In  most  cases,  it  occupies  some  considerable  time  for  one  empire  to  fall 
and  another  to  rise.  The  phrase  in  question  must  therefore  be  under 
stood  according  to  the  reason  and  nature  of  such  cases. 

In  the  text  now  before  us,  we  are  embarrassed  by  no  designation  of 
time.  Verse  1,  indeed,  has  a  limitation.  But  I  understand  v.  2,  as 
making  the  transition,  after  the  death  of  Antiochus  and  the  vindication 
of  the  Jewish  cause  by  Michael,  to  the  new  Messianic  kingdom.  In 
stead  of  repeating  the  description  of  the  power  and  greatness  of  that 
kingdom,  as  in  chaps,  ii.  vii.,  the  speaker  here  utters  Avhat  more  re 
sembles  the  view  taken  in  9:  24.  He  refers  us  to  the.  consequences 
that  would  ultimately  follow  under  a  new  dispensation  ;  and  to  such  of 
those  consequences  as  are  intimately  connected  with  his  preceding  theme. 
Chap.  11:  33  shows  the  ravages  of  the  tyrant  among  the  faithful  Jews. 
It  is  natural  to  ask :  Is  there  no  adequate  future  reward  for  the  noble 
martyrs  in  question  ?  And  equally  natural  to  ask :  Is  there  no  ade 
quate  future  retribution  for  the  tyrant  ?  The  gospel,  i.  e.  the  principles 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  "  brings  life  and  immortality  to  light."  In  due 
time  all  the  faithful  martyrs  will  be  rewarded,  and  their  persecutors  ade 
quately  punished.  Thus  much  the  new  dispensation  makes  certain. 
And  it  is  because  of  the  immediate  connection  of  this  subject  with  the 
preceding  account  of  the  tyrant's  cruelties,  that  this  great  truth  is  here 
placed  before  that  which  is  announced  in  the  third  verse.  In  common 
cases,  the  sentiment  of  v.  2  would  naturally  succeed  the  matter  brought 
to  view  in  v.  3.  It  was  more  directly  to  the  speaker's  purpose  in  the  pre 
sent  case,  to  reverse  this  order. 


364  CHAP.  XII.  2. 

What  objection  now  of  any  serious  importance  can  be  raised  against 
this  view  of  vs.  2,  3  ?  That  the  prophecy  in  xi.  xii.,  viewed  in  the  light 
of  analogy,  may  in  all  probability  be  interpreted  in  the  manner  now 
proposed,  is  clear.  Such  a  method  is  characteristic  of  the  prophecies  of 
Daniel.  That  all  attempts  to  accommodate  vs.  2,  3,  to  mere  moral  or 
political  changes  or  revolutions,  which  occurred  after  the  renewed  dedi 
cation  of  the  temple  by  Judas  Maccabaeus,  or  after  the  introduction  of 
Christianity,  have  proved  to  be  failures,  scarcely  needs  to  be  said.  They 
are  so  evidently  against  the  plain  deductions  of  philology,  and  they  do 
such  violence  to  the  language,  that  no  one  can  easily  satisfy  himself  with 
them,  unless  he  has  some  preconceived  plan  or  theory  to  maintain.  The 
only  difficulty  that  seems  to  press  upon  us,  is  that  resulting  from  the 
want  of  words  appropriate  to  the  designation  of  time.  On  this  point  one 
can  make  the  appeal  only  to  thorough  and  practised  readers  of  the  other 
prophetic  parts  of  the  O.  Test.,  who  must  often  have  met  with  the  like 
difficulty.  It  is  easy  to  point  to  examples.  Isa.  ii.  iv.  is  a  comminatory 
prophecy  against  the  Jews  then  living,  i.  e.  the  Jews  of  Isaiah's  time. 
In  4:  2 — 6  is  (as  I  cannot  well  doubt)  a  Messianic  passage,  following 
immediately  a  description  of  the  evils  to  be  suffered  by  the  rebellious 
Jews  then  living,  and  joined  to  that  description  even  by  a  Nin?i  fna,  vs. 
1,  2.  But  if  any  refuse  to  regard  Isa.  iv.  as  Messianic,  how  can  they 
dispose  of  chap.  viii.  ix.  ?  Surely  the  threatenings,  and  the  execution 
of  them,  uttered  in  chap,  viii.,  have  respect  to  the  Jews  of  Isaiah's  time. 
Yet  in  making  the  transition  from  this  period  to  the  Messianic  sequel  in 
chap.  9:  1 — 7,  not  a  word  is  said  as  to  the  interim  of  more  than  seven 
centuries  which  actually  elapsed.  Here  all  are  constrained  to  acknowl 
edge  a  prediction  truly  Messianic ;  and  yet  the  case  is  the  same,  as  in 
the  passage  under  consideration. 

Let  us  now  advance  another  step  in  the  examination  of  Isaiah,  and 
we  shall  see  the  same  arrangement  of  prophecy,  still  preserving  the  same 
characteristic.  Chap.  x.  is  a  splendid  description  of  the  progress,  the 
desolating  power,  and  the  overthrow  of  the  Assyrian  king.  Chap.  xi.  is 
a  continuation  of  the  same  prophecy,  (as  the  atx^!  at  the  beginning  clearly 
indicates),  and  this  contains  one  of  the  most  signal  of  all  the  Messianic 
predictions.  Yet  an  unpractised  or  uninformed  reader  would  never  sus 
pect,  that  the  Messianic  day  was  to  be  seven  centuries  after  the  fall  of 
the  Assyrian  invader,  since  the  prediction  of  it  stands  in  direct  contact 
with  that  respecting  the  fall  of  the  same  Assyrian.  In  chap.  xix.  the 
smiting  and  fall  of  Egypt  is  predicted,  vs.  1 — 22 ;  while  vs.  23 — 25  seem 
plainly  to  recognize  a  Messianic  reign,  which  is  to  be  universal.  This, 
be  it  also  noted,  is  introduced  with  a  Ninn  di^a ,  which  is  apparently 
stronger  and  more  specific  than  the  ",si2X  •pmn'na  of  Dan.  2:  44.  In 


CHAP.  XII.  3.  365 

chap.  xxvi.  xxvii.,  the  same  thing  is  virtually  repeated,  for  I  take  Isa. 
27:  13  to  refer  to  a  Messianic  period.  In  Isa.  xxxi.  is  reproof  of  the 
Israelites,  who  sought  foreign  aid,  and  a  prediction,  that  when  they  be 
come  penitent,  the  Messianic  king  shall  arise  to  execute  justice,  and  the 
Spirit  also  be  poured  out,  chap,  xxxii.  Here  the  time  is  not  specified ; 
but  the  latter  prediction  is  in  continuity  with  the  former  one  respecting 
Jewish  disobedience.  For  the  rest  of  Isaiah,  chap.  xl. — Ixvi.,  whether  we 
assign  it  to  the  prophet  whose  name  it  bears,  or  to  a  later  writer,  makes 
no  difference  with  the  point  before  us.  The  continual  intermingling  and 
junction  of  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  that  from  the  exile 
of  sin,  shows  that  the  writer  has  not  taken  the  least  pains  to  throw  into 
his  composition  any  distinctive  notes  of  time.  He  has  left  this  unre- 
vealed  ;  and  so  much  so,  that  one  is  strongly  moved,  in  view  of  his  whole 
composition,  to  repeat  the  declaration  of  the  Saviour  :  "  The  times  and 
seasons  hath  the  Father  put  in  his  own  power,"  Acts  1:  7. 

The  like  result  would  follow  a  scrutiny  of  the  other  prophets.  But 
I  deem  this  to  be  superfluous,  after  all  that  has  been  said  above.  I  may 
safely  assume,  for  the  present,  that  the  want  of  any  notation  of  time,  in 
a  transition  to  the  later  Messianic  period,  is  no  bar  at  all  against  regard 
ing  vs.  2,  3,  as  being  connected  with  that  period.  These  verses  open 
the  prospect  of  the  future  and  final  destiny  of  men,  both  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked,  and  show  us  the  final  result  of  the  Messianic  period.  — 
As  to  the  question,  whether  n^sn  should  be  referred  only  to  the  pious  Jews, 
there  is  no  need  of  a  moment's  delay.  No  such  Jews  surely  will  be 
raised  up  to  everlasting  contempt.  I  do  not  see  any  good  reason,  why 
DW  should  be  limited  merely  to  Hebrews,  excepting  that  the  martyrs 
of  the  preceding  chapter  belong  to  that  nation.  Undoubtedly  the  general 
truth  before  us,  respecting  a  future  restoration,  is  introduced  because 
it  comes  in  appropriately  as  connected  with  the  subject  in  hand.  And 
inasmuch  as  a  general  resurrection  is  here  taught,  it  can  be  no  other  than 
that  which  will  take  place,  at  the  end  of  the  gospel  dispensation. 

(3)  And  the  wise  shall  shine  as  the  splendor  of  the  firmament,  and  those  who  turn 
many  to  righteousness,  as  the  stars  forever  and  ever. 

That  d^Sirra  designates  such  men  as  are  described  in  11:  33,  35, 
seems  undeniable.  But  I  would  not  limit  the  meaning  merely  to  the 
Jewish  leaders  and  martyrs,  nor  to  the  pious  Jews  in  general  of  Anti- 
ochus'  time,  but,  while  it  includes  those  and  shows  what  their  reward 
will  be,  the  leading  object  seems  to  be  to  say,  that  the  influence  and  suc 
cess  of  such  men  at  a  future  period,  shall  be  greatly  augmented.  The 
truth  is  here  distinctly  taught,  that  all  such  will  have  a  glorious  reward, 

31* 


366  CHAP.  XII.  4. 

in  the  resurrection  of  the  just.  —  ^rn ,  as  a  noun,  is  confined  to  the  later 
Hebrew,  but  is  frequent  in  the  Rabbinic  and  Arabic.  The  splendor  of 
the  firmament  designates  the  shining  appearance  of  the  welkin,  with  all 
its  suns  and  stars.  So  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  has  explained  it.  — 
The  article  is  inserted  before  D^Mi'3 ,  because  it  comprises  a  whole  class. 

Such  then  is  the  nature  and  character  of  the  Messianic  period ;  these 
are  truths  which  it  will  reveal  and  inculcate.  The  sequel  of  all  the 
adversity  of  the  Hebrews  and  of  their  trials,  will  be  marked  by  their 
elevated  happiness,  and  by  retributive  justice  to  their  persecutors ;  which 
is  a  state  of  things  that  every  pious  Hebrew  must  anxiously  have  desired. 

If  after  all  any  one  is  not  satisfied  with  this  view  of  vs.  2,  3,  there  is 
another  view,  not  more  analogical,  but  perhaps  more  simple,  which  he 
can  take.  This  is,  that  vs.  2,  3,  merely  declare  the  doctrine  of  a  general 
resurrection  and  retribution,  in  and  by  which  retribution,  the  martyrs  and 
the  faithful  will  meet  with  ample  reward,  and  persecutors  and  faithless 
men  will  meet  with  condign  punishment.  In  this  simple  view  no  serious 
difficulties  are  to  be  met  with,  on  the  supposition  that  the  clause  r^ai 
X^nn  extends  its  influence  only  over  v.  1 ;  and  the  examples  above 
given  show  that  we  may  assume  this  position  in  full  conformity  with 
usage  elsewhere.  This  position  being  taken,  all  serious  difficulty  is  re 
moved  indeed  with  respect  to  both  of  the  last  proposed  interpretations. 
The  first  of  them  can  appeal  to  analogy  in  its  defence ;  the  second  may 
lay  claim  to  being  unembarrassed  by  any  lack  of  Messianic  traits  in  vs. 
2,  3.  The  positions  assumed  are  religious  truths,  appropriate  indeed  to 
every  age,  but  specially  revealed  here  for  the  consolation  of  the  oppressed 
and  the  persecuted.  The  appropriateness  of  the  sentiments  to  the  place 
which  they  occupy,  none  can  reasonably  deny. 

[The  strong  resemblance  between  what  follows  and  Rev.  22:  6 — 21,  must  be  ap 
parent  to  every  attentive  reader.  The  object  of  the  closing  part  of  Daniel  is,  to  ren 
der  secure  the  record  of  the  preceding  prophecy  ;  to  reassure  the  mind  of  the  prophet 
in  respect  to  the  limited  continuance  of  the  severest  trials  predicted ;  and  finally  to 
cheer  him  with  the  certain  prospect  of  his  own  final  and  personal  reward.] 

(4)  Moreover  do  thou,  Daniel,  close  up  these  sayings,  and  seal  the  book,  until  the 
time  of  the  end.  Many  shall  make  diligent  search,  and  knowledge  shall  be  increased. 

The  same  direction  in  respect  to  closing  up  is  given  in  8:  26,  with 
regard  to  the  prediction  which  there  precedes.  See  the  remarks  on  the 
passage.  Each  is  a  plain  case.  Close  it  up  and  seal  it,  that  no  additions 
or  subtractions  may  be  made,  nor  anything  changed  or  tampered  with. 
The  truth  and  credit  of  prophecy  will  then  be  established,  when  it  is 
seen  that  facts  strictly  accord  with  it.  In  8:  26,  however,  a  specific 
reason  is  given  for  closing  up  the  prophecy,  which  is,  that  it  is  for  a  long 


CHAP.  XII.  4.  367 

time,  i.  e.  has  respect  to  a  distant  period,  and  so  is  not  a  matter  of  imme 
diate  concern  in  respect  to  any  duty  to  be  presently  performed.  Just 
the  reverse  of  this  is  the  case  in  Revt  22:  10,  "  Seal  not  up  the  words  of 
the  prophecy  of  this  book,  for  the  time  is  NEAR,"  i.  e.  it  is  wanted  for 
immediate  use,  inasmuch  as  the  fulfilment  of  what  is  predicted  speedily 
commences.  What  those  can  do  with  this  direction  and  the  reason  for 
it,  who  pertinaciously  adhere  to  the  system  of  interpretation,  which  refers 
the  Apoc.  mainly  to  the  papacy,  when  this  papacy  scarcely  began  its 
rise  in  half  a  thousand  years  from  the  time  when  the  book  was  written, 
—  is  a  question  that  no  one  has  yet  been  able  satisfactorily  to  answer. 
Enough  for  the  case  in  hand,  that  the  time  of  the  end  was  more  than  three 
and  a  half  centuries  after  the  period  named  in  10: 1.  —  di'Wii ,  with  the 
article,  must  refer  to  the  narration  and  predictions  in  x.  xi. ;  and  strictly 
speaking  only  to  those,  for  the  command  has  respect  to  sealing  up  what 
had  been  revealed  during  the  interview  described  in  chap.  x.  —  ""ifi&ft» 
with  the  article  for  the  same  reason  as  before ;  the  book,  viz.  that  in  which 
the  words  just  adverted  to  are  recorded.  —  The  time  of  the  end  is  the 
same  as  the  I'sip  in  9:  26,  also  in  11:  35,  45,  viz.  the  end  of  Antiochus' 
reign  and  life,  for  he  is  the  principal  character  in  the  preceding  picture. 
The  prophecy  mainly  concentres  in  him,  and  has  respect  to  him  ;  there 
fore,  when  he  makes  his  appearance,  the  time  for  perusing  it,  and  medi 
tating  upon  it,  will  come.  —  So  we  are  taught  by  what  follows :  Many 
sioaiU1! ,  shall  make  diligent  search,  i.  e.  this  is  the  tropical  meaning  of  the 
word ;  the  literal  one  is :  shall  run  to  and  fro  in  search  of  something.  It 
does  not  mean  to  run  through,  percurrere,  a  book,  i.  e.  to  glance  over  its 
pages,  but  to  make  diligent  search  after  its  contents.  Much  less  does  it 
mean,  (as  it  is  often  interpreted),  to  run  hither  and  thither  in  respect  to 
localities,  i.  e.  to  travel  about,  as  the  means  of  increasing  knowledge. 
The  speaker  designs  to  say,  that  the  book,  when  the  time  of  the  end 
draws  nigh,  shall  be  sedulously  studied  and  investigated,  and  that  the 
knowledge  of  duty,  and  of  what  God  designs  to  do,  will  be  greatly  in 
creased  by  such  an  investigation.  —  fl?1J«3 ,  the  knowledge,  viz.  of  the 
prophecy  in  question.  To  put  nhb  and  nhn  into  the  form  of  a  prediction, 
and  to  give  them  a  mere  tropical  sense,  i.  e.  make  them  to  signify,  that 
the  prediction  must  be  kept  secret  and  no  disclosure  of  it  made,  nor  un 
derstanding  of  it  acquired,  until  the  events  take  place  which  it  predicts, 
(as  Hengstenberg  and  Havernick  do),  seems  to  be  a  forced  and  unnatural 
process.  How  is  knowledge  to  be  increased,  if  the  prophecy  means 
nothing  intelligible,  until  after  it  becomes  history  ?  If  this  be  indeed  so, 
then  Daniel,  or  at  any  rate  the  angel  who  communicated  with  him,  must 
have  differed  widely  from  Paul,  who  says :  "  I  had  rather  speak  five 


368  CHAP.  XII.  5—7. 

words  in  an  intelligible  manner,  so  that  I  may  instruct  others,  than  ten 
thousand  words  in  an  unintelligible  language." 

(5)  And  I  Daniel  looked,  and  behold  !  two  others  were  standing,  the  one  on  this 
side  on  the  bank  of  the  river,  and  the  other  on  that  side  on  the  bank  of  the  river. 

Two  others  —  other  than  who  ?  The  answer  must  be :  Other  than  the 
angel  mentioned  in  10:  5  seq.,  10,  16,  18,  who  made  communications  to 
him.  These  two  additional  angels  now  appeared,  to  render  more  im 
pressive  the  closing  scene.  —  Msn1]  .  . .  rtsrj,  lit.  here  and  here,  which  is 
the  Hebrew  method  of  expressing  here  and  there,  or  on  this  side  and  on 
that  side.  To  make  Gabriel  one  of  these  other  angels,  who  had  all  along 
been  the  speaker,  as  Lengerke  does,  seems  foreign  to  the  simple  meaning 
of  the  text. 

(6)  And  [one]  said  to  the  man  clothed  in  fine  linen,  who  stood  over  the  waters  of 
the  river :  Until  how  long  shall  be  the  end  of  these  wonderful  matters  ? 

Evidently  these  new  actors  in  the  scene  are  introduced,  partly  in  order 
to  give  more  explicitness  to  the  designation  of  time  in  the  prophecy. 
Daniel,  as  we  have  seen  (10:  8,  9,  15 — 17),  was  greatly  affected  with 
the  appearance  of  the  heavenly  messenger.  Out  of  compassion  to  his 
weakness,  an  angel  here  appears,  and  asks  the  question  which  Daniel 
doubtless  was  desirous  should  be  put.  One  of  the  two  other  angels, 
therefore,  is  represented  as  addressing  the  question  to  him  who  had  made 
the  communication,  10:  11,  19,  comp.  also  10:  5  seq.  —  We  express  the 
idea  of  *>rra  15  by  the  simple  how  long  ?  I  have  translated  a  little  dif 
ferently,  in  order  to  imitate  the  Hebrew.  —  The  end  of  the  wonderful  mat 
ters  is  the  death  of  Antiochus,  in  whom  centres  the  wonderful  disclosures 
of  the  preceding  vision.  So  the  article  before  ni'xbfi  indicates.  We 
shall  see  that  such  is  the  design  of  the  question,  by  the  answers  that 
follow.  —  That  the  man  clothed  in  fine  linen  was  over  the  waters  of  the 
river ,  i.  e.  stood  on  the  banks  that  rose  over  the  river,  is  plain  from  10: 
4,  5j  6  seq. 

(7)  And  I  heard  the  man  clothed  in  white  linen,  who  was  over  the  waters  of  the 
river,  and  he  lifted  up  his  right  hand  and  his  left  to  heaven,  and  he  sware  by  him  who 
liveth  forever,  that  [it  shall  be]  at  a  time,  and  times,  and  a  half,  even  when  the  crush 
ing  of  the  power  of  the  holy  people  shall  be  completed  all  these  things  shall  be 
accomplished. 

The  latter  half  of  the  verse  parallelizes  with  the  first  half,  but  ex 
presses  the  time  of  completion  by  referring  to  events,  rather  than  to  por 
tions  of  time.  The  lifting  up  of  both  hands  toward  heaven  indicates 
unusual  solemnity;  for  commonly  only  one  was  lifted  up,  Gen.  14:  22. 


CHAP.  XII.  8,  9.  369 


Ex.  6:  8.  Dent.  32:  40.  Ezek.  20:  5.  —  yiv*  ,  he  bound  himself  by  an 
oath.  —  D512  IHS  ,  lit.  by  the  lives  of  eternity,  or  by  the  living  one  of  eternity, 
the  adjective  in  being  adopted  in  the  latter  case  as  the  ground  form. 
The  sense  is  the  same  in  both  cases.  God  may  be  described  by  a  noun 
abstract,  as  well  as  concrete  ;  just  as  we  say,  the  Divinity.  The  plur.  of 
the  noun  is  intensive,  if  we  adopt  the  first  mode  of  expression.  —  As  to 
the  set  time  -fisto),  times,  and  a  half,  we  have  merely  to  compare  the 
Chaldee  TW  abw  "pM?1!  T?2?  ,  in  7:  25,  with  the  notes  there.  The  events 
and  limitation  of  time,  are  the  same  there  as  here.  The  three  and  a  half 
years  in  which  Antiochus  made  the  sanctuary  desolate,  is  what  is  aimed 
at  in  this  case.  Times,  thus  used,  means  years.  —  iSl  ^53  ni^ssi  ,  lit. 
and  when  there  shall  be  a  completion  of  breaking  in  pieces  ;  not  with  Ges., 
Win.,  De  Wette,  Leng.,  when  the  dispersion  shall  be  completed  of  a  part 
of  the  people,  etc.  ^  ,  in  this  case,  is  not  part,  portion,  but  power,  as 
often  elsewhere.  The  idea  is,  that  when  the  power  of  the  Jewish  nation 
is  as  it  were  crushed  or  broken  in  pieces  (yQ3),  then  the  death  of  Anti 
ochus  shall  take  place,  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  last  and  leading  part  of 
the  preceding  prophecy  shall  be  accomplished.  —  ttKp  again  without  the 
article,  being  used  in  the  sense  of  an  adjective,  i.  e.  as  designating  an 
abstract  qualification.  —  nlbx  ,  these  things  has  a  verb  plur.  fern.,  for  this 
is  the  more  usual  construction  with  the  names  of  things  that  are  of  a 
neuter  gender. 

(8)  And  I  heard,  but  I  understood  not  ;  and  I  said  :  My  lord,  what  is  the  latter 
end  of  these  things  ? 

Still  benumbed  as  it  were  in  the  use  of  his  senses,  Daniel  heard  indeed 
the  voice  of  the  angel,  but  did  not  fully  comprehend  his  meaning,  either 
as  to  the  exact  measure  of  the  time,  or  as  to  the  nature  of  the  events 
which  would  make  up  the  crisis  or  consummation  of  the  whole.  Conse 
quently,  on  somewhat  recovering  himself  he  asks  for  more  special  infor 
mation.  By  rvnns  cannot  be  meant,  as  some  have  maintained,  a  time 
subsequent  to  the  three  and  a  half  years  ;  it  must  be  the  latter  part  of 
those  years. 

(9)  And  he  said  :  Go,  Daniel,  for  these  things  are  closed  up  and  sealed,  until  the 
time  of  the  end. 

T|b  in  the  sense  of  depart,  viz.  from  life  =  die,  cannot  be  meant  here, 
for  what  has  the  closing  and  sealing  up  of  the  prophecy  to  do  with  Dan 
iel's  death?  But  if  we  understand  it  in  the  sense  of  go  away,  (which  the 
phrase  often  has),  the  connection  shows  it  to  be  a  requestor  command  to 
desist  from  making  further  inquiries.  The  reason  given  is,  that  the  reve 
lation  is  already  completed,  it  is  closed  up  and  sealed,  until  the  time  when 
men  shall  be  interested  to  make  diligent  inquiry  for  its  meaning. 


370  CHAP.  XII.  10—12. 


(10)  Many  will  purify  themselves,  and  become  clean,  and  make  trial  of  themselves ; 
but  the  wicked  will  do  wickedly,  and  rone  of  the  wicked  will  understand,  but  the  wise 
shall  understand. 

This  is  a  mere  summary  of  the  events  comprised  in  the  prediction,  by 
which  the  angel  means  to  say,  that  Daniel  should  acquiesce  in  these 
general  views,  without  seeking  further  minute  explanations.  —  ^"HSr^ , 
Hithp.  of  *ri2 .  —  toW1) ,  Hithp.  with  assimilated  n ,  §  53.  2.  b.  It  is 

unusual  for  n  to  assimilate  with  s ,  as  here  ;  comp.  §  53.  2.  a None 

of  the  wicked  will  understand,  viz.  the  words  of  the  prediction,  so  as  to  be 
restrained  by  it  from  doing  wickedly.  They  will  go  on  in  spite  of  its 
threats  and  predictions,  despising  the  idea  of  consulting  it  or  of  listening 
to  it.  —  On  the  other  hand,  the  wise,  near  the  time  of  the  end,  will  make 
diligent  inquiry  (SIEISJI^ |),  both  for  the  sake  of  instruction  and  consolation, 
and  they  will  attain  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  predictions. 

(11)  And  from  the  time  of  removing  the  continual  sacrifice,  and  of  setting  up  the 
abomination  that  shall  be  made  desolate,  will  be  a  thousand,  two  hundred,,  and  nine 
ty  days. 

*iO*irt  Inf.  Hoph.  as  a  noun  in  the  Gen.  —  nn^ ,  also  Inf.  of  "jna  in  the 
Gen.  after  nSE  implied.  The  b  is  put  before  it  to  indicate  its  Genitive 
condition,  §  113.  See  the  very  same  verbs  and  nouns  in  11:  31,  and 
comp.  8: 11 — 13.  In  11:31,  fsipia  is  described  as  B^^^ ,  causing  desola 
tion;  here  as  o^iu,  i.  e.  that  which  is  to  be  destroyed,  or  ought  to  be  destroyed, 
which  is  more  apposite  to  the  present  tenor  of  the  discourse.  The  1290  days 
are  more  specific  than  the  phrase,  time,  times,  and  a  half,  in  v.  7  and  also  in 
7:  25.  The  latter  (time,  etc.)  is  as  it  were  a  round  number,  three  and  a  half 
first  equalling  the  one  half  of  the  sacred  number  seven,  and  the  fractional 
part  equalling  the  half  of  one  year.  In  such  a  case,  minute  exactness  of 
course  is  not  to  be  expected.  But  the  thirty  additional  days  here  (over 
1260  days  =  forty-two  months  =  three  and  a  half  years),  are  doubtless 
designed  as  an  exact  account  of  time  during  which  the  detestable  abomi 
nation  continued  in  the  temple.  The  terminus  a  quo  is  the  time  when 
Antiochus  first  removed  the  daily  sacrifice,  which  was  probably  near  the 
end  of  May  or  at  the  beginning  of  June  in  B.  C.  168.  Judas  Macca- 
baeus  removed  this  'ppd ,  and  purified  the  temple,  Dec.  25  of  B.  C.  165. 
making  the  time  in  question,  i.  e.  three  and  a  half  years,  as  nearly  as 
history  will  enable  us  to  compute  it.  There  can  hardly  be  room  for  doubt 
that  the  statement  in  our  text  is  minutely  exact.  The  work  of  Judas,  then, 
is  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  period  in  question. 

(12)  Blessed  is  he  who  waiteth,  and  attaineth  to  one  thousand  three  hundred  and 
thirty-five  days. 

I  must  refer  the  reader  to  the  historical  facts  stated  in  the  Notes  on  7: 


CHAP.  XII.  12. 

25  above,  for  information  in  regard  to  the  course  of  events  near  the  end 
of  Antiochus'  reign.     It  appears  from  11:  40 — 44  above,  that  Antiochus 
made  another  and  final  invasion  of  Egypt,  near  the  close  of  his  life,  af 
ter  which  he  marched  against  Palestine.     Mattathias  and  his  sons,  in  the 
mean  time,  had  been  organizing  the  party  of  the  pious,  and  Antiochus 
was  exceedingly  indignant  at  the  efforts  which  they  had  made  and  the 
success  with  which  they  were  attended.     In  1  Mace.  2:  26 — 37,  we  have 
an  account  of  the  situation  of  Antiochus,  while  in  the  "  glorious  land." 
His  treasury  was  empty.  He  had  already  robbed  the  temple  of  all  which  it 
contained  that  was  of  any  value,  and  he  was  necessitated  to  look  to  an 
other  quarter.     He  left  half  of  his  army,  therefore,  with  Lysias,  one  of 
his  favorite  officers,  and  passed  over  the  Euphrates  in  order  to  rifle  the 
countries  of  the  East.    First  he  went  through  and  subdued  Armenia 
(ra$  inavw  %wQa<;,  v.  37),  and  then  turned  off  to  rob  the  temple  in  Ely 
mais,  where  he  met  with  disgrace,  and  finally  with  death.   Not  long  after 
the  departure  of  Antiochus,  Lysias  began  the  contest  in  Palestine  in  seri 
ous  earnest ;  but  Judas  uniformly  triumphed  in  all  his  encounters ;  and 
so  decisive  was  one  of  them  over  Lysias,  that  Judas  proceeded  to  purify 
the  temple,  and  to  restore  its  worship,  1  Mace.  4:  36  seq.     All  this  must 
have  occupied  some  months ;  and  the  consecration  of  the  temple  took 
place  the  25th  of  Dec.  165  B.  C.     Of  course  Antiochus  had  had  sufficient 
time  for  his  conquest  in  Armenia  and  for  his  advance  to  Elymais,  before 
the  winter  had  far  advanced.     It  was  in  early  spring  that  he  undertook 
the  robbery  of  the  temple  in  Elymais  ;  after  which,  on  his  retreat,  the 
news  met  him  of  total  defeat  in  Palestine,  and  helped  to  increase  the 
malady  under  which  he  was  then  laboring.     In  1  Mace.  6:  1  seq.  is  an 
account  of  the  close  of  the  life  of  Antiochus,  and  of  his  failure  at  Elymais. 
If  now  we  count  onward,  from  the  consecration  of  the  temple  by  Judas, 
to  the  time  when  Antiochus  deceased,  we  shall  perceive,  at  once,  that 
the  period  of  1335  days  is  in  all  probability  the  period  of  Antiochus' 
death.     From  the  time  that  the  daily  burnt  offering  was  removed  by 
Apollonius,  at  the  command  of  Antiochus,  to  the  time  of  reconsecration, 
were  1290  days.     From  the  same"  terminus  a  quo  to  the  death  of  Antio 
chus,  were  1335  days,  i.  e.  forty-five  days  more  than  is  included  in  the 
preceding  period.      History  has  not  anywhere  recorded  the  precise  day 
of  Antiochus'  death  ;  so  that  we  cannot  compare  the  passage  before  us 
with  that.     But  we  are  certain  as  to  the  order  of  events,  and  as  to  the 
season  of  the  year,  as  well  as  the  year  itself,  in  which  the  death  of  this 
king  took  place.     Of  the  general  accuracy  there  can  be  no  doubt ;  and 
such  are  the  chronological  designations  of  this  book,  that  we  may  safely 
rely,  in  this  case,  on  its  minute  accuracy. 

Bkssed  is  he  that  waiteth,  more  exactly :   0  beatitudines  expectantis  ! 


372  CHAP.  XII.  13. 


—  itsnnn  ,  Dagh.  omitted  after  the  article,  §  20.  3.  b.  The  lexicon  gives  us 
only  expecto  as  the  meaning  of  nsrt  ,  i.  e.  to  wait  with  hope  or  expecta 
tion.  This  may  be  the  shade  of  meaning  here  ;  but  if  so,  it  will  imply  a 
knowledge,  on  the  part  of  those  who  wait,  of  the  predictions  before  us, 
and  a  looking  for  their  accomplishment.  This  is  not  a  bad  sense.  But 
still,  I  apprehend  the  meaning  of  the  speaker  here  to  be  :  *  Blessed  are 
those  who  continue  in  life,  and  attain  to  the  happy  period  of  Israel's  libe 
ration  !'  No  one,  in  view  of  the  horrid  cruelties  and  impieties  of  Antiochus, 
can  wonder  that  those  are  congratulated,  who  had  been  subject  to  his  do 
minion  and  are  now  delivered  from  it.  On  the  ground  assumed  above, 
all  is  congruous  and  well  adapted  to  complete  the  symmetry  of  the  whole 
prophecy. 

(13)  But  as  for  thee,  go  onward  to  the  end  [of  life]  ;  and  thou  shalt  have  rest, 
and  stand  up  for  thy  lot  at  the  end  of  time. 

I  take  T£  to  be  used  here,  in  a  somewhat  different  shade  of  meaning 
from  that  which  the  word  has  in  v.  9.  Here  it  is  equivalent  to  our  :  De 
part  in  peace.  In  other  words,  it  is  a  courteous  method  of  dismissing  an 
auditor,  when  all  is  told  which  was  designed  to  be  communicated.  Other 
wise  expressed  it  would  be  :  You  now  have  leave  to  retire.  The  tone  of 
voice,  in  such  a  case,  would  decide  whether  one  was  dismissed  in  anger 
or  in  peace.  Here  the  latter  is  quite  certain.  —  y;?b  ,  to  the  end,  i.  e.  the 
end  of  Daniel's  life,  and  hence  the  article,  which  in  such  a  case  is  equiva 
lent  (as  in  Greek)  to  the  pronoun-adjective  thy.  —  rrtDPi  ,  rest  in  a  peace 
ful  grave.  —  "rasni  ,  the  opposite  of  resting,  viz.  standing  up.  The  mean 
ing  seems  plainly  to  be  :  Thou  shalt  oUain  a  resurrection,  rise  up  (=  Dip, 
as  ins  often  does  in  the  later  Hebrew).  *ifc?Pj  has  also  the  ad- 
signification  of  stand  up  firmly,  being  placed  in  a  permanent  condi 
tion.  V.  3  above  entitles  us  to  make  all  these  conclusions  in  respect  to 
the  meaning  here.  —  For  the  illustration  of  the  Via  ,  comp.  Acts  26:  18, 
Col.  1:  12,  rqv  peQida  rov  xkrJQOv;  Rev.  20:  6,  psgos  Iv  ry 
The  allusion  is  to  the  lot  or  inheritance  given  to  the  Hebrew 
tribes,  who  took  possession  of  Palestine.  Daniel's  part  is  in  the  heavenly 
Canaan.  —  TE^  Y\£>  ,  lit.  at  the  end  of  the  days.  The  word  days  means 
undefined  or  unlimited  time,  and  the  whole  expression  exactly  meets  our 
English  phrase,  at  the  end  of  time.  The  article  stands  before  the  noun 
as  comprising  a  totality,  at  the  end  of  time.  A  comparison  of  this  with  v.  3 
shows  at  least  that  there  is  here  no  new  or  strange  doctrine.  Daniel  is  to 
have  a  place,  among  those  "  who  have  been  wise  and  turned  many  to  right 
eousness."  An  assurance  full  of  comfort  to  him,  who  was  now  very  far 
advanced  in  life  ;  and  full  of  comfort  to  all  who  walk  in  his  steps,  and  are 
animated  by  his  spirit. 


CRITICAL  HISTORY  AND  DEFENCE 


THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL 


§  1.  Personal  History  of  Daniel. 

THE  only  authentic  source  whence  we  can  draw  this,  is  the  book 
which  bears  his  name.  His  character  and  the  peculiar  incidents  of  his 
life  have  indeed  given  occasion  to  many  apocryphal  narrations  respect 
ing  him ;  but  these  mostly  belong  to  a  later  period,  and  are  unworthy  of 
critical  confidence. 

According  to  the  statement  in  Dan.  1:  1 — 3,  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king 
of  Babylon  besieged  and  took  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah,  i.  e.  B.  C.  607.  With  many  of  the  vessels  of 
the  temple  which  he  sent  to  Babylon,  there  were  also,  as  the  sequel  of  the 
narration  shows  us,  a  company  of  young  Hebrews  of  royal  or  princely 
origin  brought  to  the  capital  of  the  conqueror.  Among  these,  Daniel 
and  his  three  friends,  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah,  were  the  most 
comely  and  conspicuous.  These,  therefore,  were  given  in  charge  by  Neb 
uchadnezzar  to  his  master-courtier,  Ashpenaz,  to  be  supported  at  the  ex 
pense  of  the  king,  and  instructed  in  the  language  and  sciences  of  the 
Chaldees,  in  order  that  they  might  be  fitted  in  due  time,  to  become  the 
personal  waiters  and  attendants  of  the  monarch. 

The  age  of  Daniel,  when  he  was  carried  into  exile,  is  no  where  stated 
in  his  writings  ;  but  he  and  his  friends  are  called  D^b? ,  (v.  4).  This 
word,  in  Hebrew,  characterizes  the  period  from  the  age  of  childhood  up 
to  that  of  manhood,  and  might  be  translated  boys,  lads,  or  youth.  Ignatius 
(Ep.  ad  Magn.)  says,  that  Daniel  was  twelve  years  of  age  when  he  went 
into  exile ;  Chrysostom  (Opp.  VI.  p.  423)  says  that  he  was  eighteen ; 
Epiphanius  says:  «rt^mo^ooV;  Jerome  (adv.  Jovin.  III.)  calls  him 
admodum  puer.  Of  course,  these  are  but  mere  guesses,  or  at  best  but 
floating  traditions.  Still  they  cannot  be  far  from  the  truth.  The  nature 

32 


374  §  1.    PERSONAL    HISTORY    OF   DANIEL. 

of  the  case,  and  the  usual  custom  of  Oriental  monarchs  to  prepare  for 
themselves  the  most  active  and  sprightly  waiters  from  the  highest  classes 
of  society,  are  sufficient  vouchers  for  the  probability,  that  Daniel  was  not 
more  than  some  twelve  or  fourteen  years  of  age,  when  he  was  brought 
to  the  court  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

That  Daniel  was  of  regal  descent,  is  by  no  means  improbable.  Ac 
cording  to  Dan.  1:  3,  the  captives  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  had  sent  away 
were  either  of  regal  or  of  princely  extraction.  The  history  of  that  period, 
in  Kings  and  Chronicles,  seems  to  warrant  the  supposition,  that  the 
Jewish  lads  in  question  were  hostages,  who  were  drawn  from  the  upper 
classes  of  society  at  Jerusalem,  in  order  to  secure  the  quiet  and  submis 
sion  of  the  Jewish  king  and  his  nobles,  in  their  tributary  condition. 

Daniel's  first  developments  of  character  showed  that  he  was  possessed 
of  sincere  and  ardent  love  for  the  law  of  God  as  contained  in  the  sacred 
books  of  his  country,  and  also  of  great  firmness  and  integrity.  Nor  did 
the  early  buddings  of  his  youth  disappoint  the  expectations  which  they 
raised ;  for  they  ripened  into  precious  and  abundant  fruit  in  his  maturer 
age.  Daniel  declined  to  feed  on  the  luxurious  viands  of  the  Babylonish 
monarch ;  and  in  order  to  shun  such  food  as  the  law  of  Moses  had  pro 
hibited,  he  sought  and  obtained  leave  of  his  guardian,  for  him  and  his 
companions  to  live  on  a  vegetable  diet.  With  signal  success  they  pur 
sued  this  mode  of  living,  until  the  time  came  for  them  to  be  called  into 
the  service  of  the  king;  Dan.  1:  5 — 18.  To  attribute,  as  some  do,  the 
conduct  of  Daniel  on  this  occasion  of  abstinence  to  excessive  supersti 
tion,  seems  neither  candid  nor  equitable.  The  laws  of  Moses  were 
simply  obeyed,  and  nothing  more.  The  least  that  can  be  said  of  these 
laws  is,  that  certain  kinds  of  food  are  absolutely  prohibited  by  them,  in 
all  cases  where  abstinence  is  feasible,  and  life  and  health  are  not  endan 
gered  by  it. 

It  appears  from  1:  17,  that  Daniel  and  his  friends  became  acquainted 
with  all  the  knowledge  and  science  and  wisdom  of  the  Chaldees ;  while 
Daniel  himself  was  distinguished  from  the  others  by  the  power  of  un 
derstanding  and  interpreting  dreams  and  visions.  In  relating  this  fact, 
however,  the  prophet  is  careful  to  declare,  that  God,  and  he  only,  had 
bestowed  these  gifts  upon  him  and  upon  his  companions. 

When  called  before  Nebuchadnezzar,  at  the  end  of  their  three  years' 
course  of  education,  he  and  his  companions  were  found  by  that  monarch 
to  be  far  more  skilled  in  all  science  and  wisdom,  than  the  Babylonian 
astrologers  and  sacred  scribes ;  1:  20. 

Not  long  after  this,  Nebuchadnezzar  had  a  dream,  which  occasioned 
him  great  agitation  of  mind  and  disquietude.  But  the  particulars  of  that 


§  1.    PERSONAL   HISTORY    OF   DANIEL.  375 

dream  had  eluded  his  memory.  In  this  state,  he  summoned  all  the 
Babylonish  Magi  and  soothsayers  before  him,  and  demanded  of  them, 
on  pain  of  death,  to  disclose  to  him  both  the  dream  itself  and  its  interpre 
tation.  This  they  felt  to  be  impossible  ;  and  they  therefore  sought  for 
delay,  in  order  that  in  some  way  the  king  might  be  either  pacified  or 
deluded.  The  king  refused  to  grant  the  delay  sought  for,  and  ordered 
the  whole  mass  of  this  order  of  men  to  be  destroyed.  In  this  state 
of  things,  Daniel  interposed,  having  first  sought  by  earnest  supplication 
of  himself  and  his  friends  that  God  would  reveal  to  them  the  matter  in 
question,  and  having  obtained  a  favorable  answer  to  his  prayer.  The 
Jewish  prophet  repaired  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  audience-chamber,  and 
there  disclosed  all  the  particulars  of  the  dream,  and  gave  the  significant 
and  ominous  interpretation  thereof.  Nebuchadnezzar,  stricken  with  awe 
and  astonishment,  commanded  oblations  to  be  made  to  him,  made  him 
ruler  or  satrap  over  the  province  of  Babylon,  and  placed  him  at  the 
head  of  the  Magi  and  all  the  learned  men  of  his  capital ;  ch.  ii. 

In  this  exalted  station,  Daniel  did  not  forget  or  neglect  his  friends, 
with  whom  he  had  so  long  and  so  intimately  been  associated.  He  re 
quested  the  king  to  bestow  some  office  upon  them ;  who,  in  compliance 
with  his  wishes,  made  them  overseers  of  his  affairs  in  the  province  of 
Babylon. 

It  lies  on  the  face  of  Daniel's  narration,  that  he  had  little  or  nothing  of 
the  spirit  of  jealousy  and  self-exaltation.  Most  heartily  did  he  rejoice 
in  the  honor  done  to  his  companions.  They,  as  well  as  he,  were  found 
by  the  king  to  be  far  more  skilled  "  in  all  matters  of  wisdom  and  under 
standing,"  than  the  Magi  and  astrologers,  (1:  20).  They  made  common 
cause  with  him,  as  to  the  decree  that  the  Magi  should  be  cut  off;  and 
their  supplications,  as  well  as  his,  went  up  before  the  throne  of  mercy, 
that  the  secret  of  the  king's  dream  might  be  revealed.  And  although 
Daniel  was  the  chosen  instrument  of  disclosure,  they  participated  with 
him  in  the  honors  and  emoluments  that  ensued. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Daniel  has  perpetuated  the  memory  of  his  friends,  as 
taking  a  place  among  the  noblest  martyrs  for  truth  that  stand  recorded 
on  the  pages  of  sacred  history.  The  third  chapter  of  his  work  is  wholly 
devoted  to  an  account  of  their  martyrdom,  and  its  results.  They  refused 
to  do  homage  before  the  gigantic  idol  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  and  by  his 
command  were  cast  into  a  furnace  of  fire,  heated  far  beyond  the  cus 
tomary  degree.  There  they  were  accompanied  and  protected  by  an 
angel  of  God,  who  assumed  a  radiant  and  dazzling  appearance.  When 
Nebuchadnezzar  saw  him,  he  was  terrified,  and  commanded  the  objects 
of  his  vengeance  to  quit  the  furnace.  Once  more,  as  in  the  case  when 


376  §  1.   PERSONAL    HISTORY    OF   DANIEL. 

his  first  dream  was  interpreted,  this  passionate  and  haughty  monarch 
was  constrained  to  give  glory  to  the  God  of  the  Hebrews.  He  even 
issued  a  proclamation,  forbidding  his  subjects  to  speak  any  word  of  re 
proach  against  that  God ;  chap.  iii.  Thus  has  Daniel  consigned  to 
perpetual  remembrance,  admiration,  and  heart-felt  applause,  his  three 
pious  and  distinguished  companions. 

We  have  no  designation  of  the  time  when  these  events  happened.  In 
all  probability,  however,  it  was  not  until  some  time  after  Nebuchadnezzar 
had  finished  his  conquests,  and  amassed  an  almost  boundless  store  of 
wealth.  Usher  names  580  B.  C.  as  a  probable  period,  i.  e.  eight  years 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple. 

It  is  a  singular  circumstance,  that  Daniel  is  not  at  all  mentioned,  in 
connection  with  the  affair  on  the  plain  of  Dura,  but  only  his  companions. 
But  to  make  this  a  serious  objection  against  the  truthful  narrative  of  the 
book,  as  Lengerke  has  done,  is  hardly  just  or  generous.  Was  not  Daniel 
prime  minister  of  the  king  ?  And  could  not  a  man,  "  who  was  ruler 
over  the  whole  province  of  Babylon,"  be  so  busied  with  some  special 
duties  of  his  office,  as  to  be  unable  to  attend  the  dedication  of  the  image  ? 
And  might  he  not,  for  some  good  reason  which  respected  the  affairs  of 
the  State,  have  been  excused  by  the  king  himself  from  attendance  on 
that  occasion  ?  These  suppositions  are  neither  unnatural  nor  improbable ; 
and  if  they  are  well  grounded,  they  account  satisfactorily  for  the  absence 
of  Daniel. 

Sometime  after  this,  (Usher  supposes  some  ten  years,  i.  e.  B.  C.  570), 
Nebuchadnezzar  had  another  dream,  which  gave  him  deep  anxiety.  He 
applied  in  vain  to  the  magicians  and  astrologers  to  interpret  it.  His 
application  first  to  them,  was  not  improbably  a  measure  dictated  by 
policy,  so  as  to  save  Daniel  from  the  envy  that  would  be  excited  by  a 
primary  application  to  him.  It  would  seem  that  the  king  had  already  seen 
enough  of  their  impotence,  to  convince  him  that  they  could  do  nothing 
in  such  an  exigency.  The  issue  of  this  application  was  like  that  in  the 
case  of  the  former  dream ;  although  the  king  had  not  now  forgotten  his 
dream,  but  related  it.  Daniel  was  at  last  introduced.  The  king  told 
him  what  he  had  seen,  in  the  visions  of  the  night.  The  prophet  was 
deeply  affected  with  it,  and  out  of  kind  feeling  and  gratitude  to  the  king 
was  reluctant  to  give  the  explanation.  But  the  king  insisted  on  it.  He 
therefore  told  him  plainly,  that  the  dream  foreboded  the  loss  of  his  throne 
and  of  his  reason,  for  seven  years.  This  came  upon  him.  At  the  end 
of  this  period  his  reason  returned,  and  he  was  again  welcomed  by  his  nobles 
and  his  people  to  the  throne  so  long  vacant.  On  this  occasion  he  issued 
a  proclamation  narrating  all  these  facts,  and  extolling  and  honoring  the 


§  1.  PERSONAL   HISTORY   OF  DANIEL.  377 

Most  High,  who  had  thus  abased  and  chastised  him,  and  also  had  mercy 
upon  him.  Dan.  iv.  is  occupied  with  this  proclamation. 

It  seems  to  be  quite  probable,  that  Daniel  retained  his  place  during 
the  interregnum,  and  as  chief  of  the  Magi,  he  was  of  course  the  tempo 
rary  viceroy  of  the  king.  He  too  would  be  most  likely  to  keep  the 
throne  in  abeyance  for  Nebuchadnezzar,  because  he  was  confident  of  his 
being  ultimately  restored  to  his  reason  and  his  place.  In  other  hands, 
the  government  would,  in  all  probability,  have  gone  over  to  some  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  or  some  fortunate  aspirant  to  the  vacant  throne. 

Not  improbably  the  death  of  Nebuchadnezzar  occurred  soon  after  this. 
He  reigned  forty-one  years ;  or,  inasmuch  as  the  Jews  reckoned  from 
the  time  of  the  first  invasion  of  Palestine  by  him,  he  reigned,  according 
to  their  reckoning,  forty-three  years.  If  Usher  is  in  the  right,  the  end 
of  the  seven  years'  mania,  would  be  in  the  forty-first  of  his  reign. 

Our  next  account  of  Daniel  has  reference  to  some  thirty  years  after 
the  period  just  named.  In  B.  C.  538,  Belshazzar  is  on  the  throne;  and 
he  was  now  at  the  close  of  the  seventeen  years  of  his  reign.  Inflated  with 
pride  and  vain  glory,  he  made  a  great  feast  to  a  thousand  of  his  lords, 
and  under  the  intoxicating  influence  of  excessive  banqueting,  he  sent  for 
the  vessels  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  which  were  deposited  in  the  temple 
of  Belus.  These  were  brought,  and  subjected  to  the  promiscuous  use  of 
the  revellers,  who,  in  honor  of  their  idol-gods,  drank  from  them,  and 
chanted  the  impious  praises  of  their  deities,  mixed  (no  doubt)  with  many 
reproaches  to  the  God  of  Israel.  In  the  midst  of  this  Bacchanalian  tu 
mult,  heathenish  impiety,  and  contempt,  a  hand  like  that  of  a  man,  guided 
by  some  invisible  being,  appeared  to  the  king  and  his  companions,  writing 
upon  the  wall  some  mystical  letters  which  none  could  read.  The  Magi 
and  astrologers  were  summoned ;  but  all  in  vain.  Finally,  the  king's 
mother  addressed  the  terrified  assemblage,  and  told  them  what  had  been 
done  by  Daniel  in  the  way  of  interpretation,  during  the  days  of  king 
Nebuchadnezzar.  Daniel  is  forthwith  sent  for,  and  large  promises  of 
reward  are  made  to  him,  in  case  he  should  read  and  explain  the  writing 
upon  the  wall.  He  did  so ;  and  the  explanation  was,  that  the  death  of 
the  king,  and  the  extinction  of  his  dynasty,  was  near  at  hand.  In  that 
very  night,  Cyrus  made  himself  master  of  the  city,  and  the  king  was 
slain ;  chap.  v. 

It  would  seem  that  Daniel,  under  this  last  monarch,  had  retired  to 
private  life ;  for  the  king  seems  to  have,  at  that  period,  no  particular 
knowledge  of  him.  Nothing  is  more  common  in  the  East,  than  the 
entire  change  of  the  civil  ministry  after  the  death  of  a  king.  The  new 
king  is  usually  jealous  of  the  old  ministers  on  account  of  their  acquired 

*32 


378  §  1.   PERSONAL    HISTORY    OP   DANIEL. 

influence,  and  prefers  for  his  confidants  those  whom  he  has  well  known 
and  with  whom  he  is  familiar.  It  is  quite  probable,  therefore,  that  Dan 
iel  withdrew  from  the  high  public  station  which  he  had  occupied,  after 
the  death  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  still,  that  he  might  have  been  em 
ployed  in  minor  affairs,  and  in  the  provinces,  seems  to  be  made  probable 
by  8:  2,  27.  We  find  him  in  Elam,  as  there  stated,  when  his  second 
vision  occurred ;  and  here  he  did  the  king's  business,  v.  27.  Belshazzar, 
however,  in  accordance  with  his  promise,  bestowed  costly  decorations 
upon  him,  and  made  him  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom.  But  this  honor 
lasted  only  for  an  hour.  The  death  of  Belshazzar,  and  the  destruction 
of  his  dynasty,  followed  immediately  after  the  elevation  of  the  prophet. 

Darius  the  Mede,  who  had  long  been  leagued  with  Cyrus  in  the  sub 
jugation  of  Asia  Minor,  now  assumed  the  throne  of  Babylon.  Under 
him  Daniel  held  a  most  conspicuous  place,  being  the  first  of  three  presi 
dents  or  viceroys  of  the  kingdom  ;  6:  1,  2.  But  the  splendid  acquisitions 
and  talents  and  honors  of  Daniel  greatly  disturbed  his  colleagues  in 
office,  and  they,  moved  by  envy,  sought  to  destroy  him.  By  appeals  to 
the  pride  and  ambition  of  Darius,  they  obtained  a  decree  from  him,  that 
no  one  should,  during  thirty  days,  ask  either  God  or  man  for  anything, 
except  the  king  himself.  Daniel,  who  was  a  man  of  prayer,  disobeyed 
this  decree.  As  usual,  he  repaired  to  his  sanctum  in  the  upper  story  of 
his  house,  and  there,  as  he  was  wont,  prayed  three  times  every  day. 
He  was  watched,  and  reported  to  the  king.  The  latter  was  greatly  dis 
tressed  at  the  intelligence,  because  of  his  attachment  to  Daniel ;  but  he 
was  obliged  to  yield  to  the  demand  of  his  nobles,  that  the  penalty  of  the 
decree  should  be  inflicted.  Daniel  was  cast  into  a  den  of  lions.  But 
there  he  was  kept  in  safety,  by  an  angel  commissioned  for  this  purpose. 
The  king,  on  discovering  this,  ordered  him  to  be  taken  out  of  the  den, 
and  also  that  the  men  who  had  maligned  him,  with  their  wives  and 
children,  should  be  cast  into  the  same  den.  There  they  were  instantly 
torn  in  pieces. 

We  have  no  further  authentic  particulars  of  the  life  of  Daniel.  We 
know  merely,  from  the  dates  of  his  prophetic  visions,  that  the  first  of 
these  occurred  in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Belshazzar,  about  555 
B.  C.  The  second  was  in  the  third  year  of  Belshazzar's  reign,  i.  e. 
during  553  B.  C.  In  both  these  cases  he  was  deeply  affected  in  body 
and  mind,  the  matter  of  the  visions  being  portentous  of  much  coming 
evil.  His  third  vision  was  in  B.  C.  538,  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  the 
Mede.  In  this  case,  an  attentive  perusal  of  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah 
had  brought  him  to  see,  that  the  seventy  years  of  exile  which  had  been 
predicted,  were  near  their  close.  With  fasting  and  prayer,  he  besought 


§  1.   PERSONAL  HISTORY   OF  DANIEL.  379 

the  Lord  most  earnestly  to  forgive  his  offending  people,  and  to  accom 
plish  his  promises  in  respect  to  their  return  from  exile.  On  this  occa 
sion,  the  angel  Gabriel  was  sent  to  make  some  new  and  portentous 
communications  to  him.  They  respected  the  laying  waste  of  Jerusalem 
the  profanation  of  the  temple,  and  the  persecution  of  the  godly.  The 
famous  period  of  seventy  weeks  is  a  part  of  what  Gabriel  declared  on 
this  occasion ;  which  was  probably  understood  by  Daniel,  but  has  hard 
ly  been  explained  or  agreed  upon  in  any  after  age.  This  is  undoubtedly 
among  the  most  difficult  passages  in  all  the  Bible. 

Down  so  late  as  534  B.  C.,  i.  e.  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus'  reign,  we 
meet  with  the  most  peculiar  of  all  Daniel's  prophetic  visions,  including 
chaps,  x. — xii.  The  larger  part  of  chap.  xi.  seems  more  like  a  history 
of  what  had  past,  than  a  prediction  of  the  future.  So  Porphyry  un 
derstood  it ;  and  he  grounded  his  main  objection  to  the  prophetic  nature 
of  the  book,  on  this  view  of  the  chapter  in  question.  In  this  particular  he 
has  had  not  a  few  followers,  within  a  recent  period.  There  is  truly 
nothing  like  it,  in  all  the  Bible.  Even  our  Saviour's  prediction 
respecting  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  will  not  compare  with  it  in 
respect  to  minute  historical  detail.  The  terrible  catastrophe  that 
followed  the  quarrel  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  with  the  Jews,  seems  to 
have  been  the  principal  burden  of  all  Daniel's  prophetic  annunciations ; 
and  in  this  last  vision,  he  has  advanced  far  beyond  any  example  of 
minuteness  in  his  earlier  disclosures. 

The  vision  closes,  appropriately,  with  kind  and  comforting  assurances 
to  Daniel,  in  a  personal  respect.  He  needed  them.  His  bosom  had 
beat  so  high  and  «o  long  with  patriotic  feeling,  that  now,  when  liberation 
from  the  Babylonish  exile  was  at  hand,  it  was  very  trying  to  look  for 
ward  and  see  the  future  miseries  and  vexations  of  his  people.  Never 
did  that  people  raise  up  a  truer  patriot,  or  possess  a  warmer  and  more 
faithful  and  constant  friend. 

At  the  time  of  this  last  vision,  Daniel  must  have  been  some  84  years 
of  age.  There  is  nothing  uncommon,  however,  in  this ;  for  not  a  few 
persons  of  temperate  and  abstemious  habits  attain  such  an  age,  with 
little  or  no  diminution  of  mental  vigor.  But  as  we  find  not  his  name 
among  those  Jews  who  returned  to  Palestine,  it  is  probable  that  his  age, 
and  perhaps  his  offices,  prevented  him  from  undertaking  such  a  journey. 

It  is  singular  enough  that  the  existence  of  such  a  man  at  Baby 
lon,  during  the  exile,  should  have  recently  been  doubted,  and  even  denied. 
Besides  Moses,  there  is  hardly  any  one  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  that 
has  obtained  so  much  celebrity.  There  are  none  whose  wisdom,  and 
dexterity,  and  elevation,  and  influence,  have  been  more  celebrated 


§  1.   PERSONAL    HISTORY   OF   DANIEL. 

among  the  Jews.  It  would  be  as  reasonable  to  deny  that  David  or 
Solomon  were  real  personages,  as  that  Daniel  was.  That  he  was  such  a 
man  as  the  book  that  bears  his  name  represents  him  to  have  been, 
may  indeed  be  denied  by  skeptical  criticism ;  but  that  a  distinguished 
man,  of  such  a  name,  lived  and  flourished  at  Babylon,  during  the  exile, 
cannot  be  denied  with  any  more  probability  than  the  existence  of  Neb 
uchadnezzar  can  be  denied.  None  of  the  Greek  historians  mention 
such  a  king  as  Nebuchadnezzar  at  Babylon.  Are  we  then  to  conclude 
that  there  was  none  ?  We  might  as  well  do  so,  yea  do  so  with  even  a 
better  face,  than  we  can  deny  the  existence  and  offices  of  Daniel. 

That  Daniel  has  ever  been  placed  by  the  Jews  among  the  foremost 
rank  of  their  prophets,  is  quite  clear.  Josephus,  near  the  close  of  his 
Antiq.  Jud.  Lib.  x.,  after  giving  a  summary  of  all  the  historical  parts  of 
Daniel,  concludes  by  saying  that  "the  merits  of  this  man  must  excite 
the  wonder  of  all  who  hear  of  them.  Everything  succeeded  to  admira 
tion  with  him,  as  one  of  the  greatest  prophets.  Not  only  during  his  life 
time,  was  honor  and  glory  bestowed  on  him  by  kings,  and  by  the  multi 
tude,  but  after  his  death  he  is  held  in  perpetual  remembrance.  For  his 
writings,  which  he  left  behind  him,  are  now  read  by  us,  and  through 
them  we  believe  that  Daniel  held  converse  with  God,  for  he  not  only 
predicted  things  to  come,  like  other  prophets,  but  definitely  limited  the 
period  when  they  should  take  place."  Such  was  the  view  which  this 
most  distinguished  historian  and  learned  priest  of  the  Jews,  took  of  the 
person  and  work  of  Daniel ;  a  view  common  to  all  his  countrymen  at 
that  period,  and  to  nearly  all  ever  since  that  time.  The  author  of  1 
Mace.  (2 :  59,60)  has  expressly  referred  to  Daniel  and  his  companions, 
and  ranked  them  with  other  Jewish  worthies  of  the  highest  note.  The 
apocryphal  books  of  Susannah  and  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  make  Dan 
iel  the  hero  of  their  romantic  tales ;  and  the  former  speaks  of  him  as 
deciding  the  case  of  the  adulterous  judges,  when  he  was  yet  a  youth. 
Finally,  Ezekiel,  the  contemporary  of  Daniel,  and  like  him  in  exile, 
speaks  of  him  (about  B.  C.  584)  as  a  shining  example  of  uprightness 
and  of  wisdom,  ranking  him  with  Noah  and  Job,  14:  13,  18,  20. 
In  another  passage  (28  :  3)  he  refers  to  Daniel  as  a  preeminent  exam- 
plar  of  wisdom.  The  Saviour  himself  calls  Daniel  a  prophet,  and 
quotes  his  words  as  such;  Matt:  24:  15.  Mark  13:  14.  Paul  (Heb. 
11 :  33,  34)  alludes  to  him;  and  John  has  taken  him  as  a  kind  of 
model,  throughout  the  Apocalypse. 

The  question,  then,  whether  there  was  such  a  man  as  Daniel,  con 
spicuous  above  most  men,  and  beloved  and  honored  of  God,  seems  to 
be  sufficiently  vouched  for  by  all  these  testimonies. 


§  2.   NATURE  AND   DESIGN    OP  THE   BOOK.  381 

The  attentive  reader  of  the  Scriptures  will  perceive,  that  the  part 
which  Daniel  had  to  act,  was  not  only  conspicuous,  but  singular  and 
very  difficult.  What  other  Hebrew  prophet  was  ever  called  to  such  a 
course  of  action,  at  a  heathen  court,  yea  a  court  which  then  governed, 
as  it  were,  the  world?  Jonah,  indeed,  had  a  short  mission  to  the  Nine- 
vites ;  but  briefly  and  grudgingly  was  it  performed.  Daniel,  although 
a  mere  lad  when  brought  to  Babylon,  preserved  an  incorruptible  integ 
rity  of  character  as  a  true  disciple  of  Moses,  and  ever  lived  uninflu 
enced  by  the  luxury  and  splendor  and  honors  of  the  Babylonish  court. 
That  he  was  a  man  of  a  most  fearless  spirit,  is  evident  from  the  whole 
tenor  of  his  life.  That  he  did  the  duties  of  his  station  in  the  most  able 
and  faithful  manner,  is  evident  from  the  length  of  time  in  which  he  was 
prime  minister  of  State.  That  he  cherished  the  warmest  emotions  of 
patriotism  toward  his  own  country  and  people,  is  inscribed  in  high  relief 
upon  his  whole  book ;  but  above  all,  upon  his  intercessions  in  their 
behalf,  as  developed  in  chap.  ix. 

Of  Daniel's  characteristics  as  a  writer,  and  of  the  object,  style,  and 
qualities  of  his  work,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  in  the  sequel. 

§  2.  Nature  and  Design  of  the  Book. 

It  is  difficult  to  make  a  greater  mistake  in  regard  to  these,  than  to 
suppose  that  he  designed  to  write  a  continuous  and  regular  history, 
either  of  himself,  of  the  Jews,  or  of  the  kings  of  Babylon.  So  much 
of  his  early  history  is  developed,  as  serves  to  cast  light  on  the  manner 
in  which  he  became  qualified  to  act  the  important  part  which  fell  to  his 
lot.  When  this  is  accomplished,  he  is  brought  to  view  only  on  some 
great  occasions,  where  his  interposition  seems  to  make  a  signal  display 
of  divine  power  and  goodness.  E.  g.  he  interprets  Nebuchadnezzar's  first 
and  second  mysterious  dreams.  He  explains  to  the  impious  Belshazzar 
the  ominous  hand-writing  on  the  wall.  He  is  elevated  to  the  post  of 
viceroy  under  Darius  the  Mede,  and  had  a  marvellous  escape  from  the 
den  of  lions,  into  which  he  had  been  cast  by  the  malignant  artifices  of 
envious  courtiers.  It  appears  probable  from  6  :  28  and  10  :  1,  that  he 
retained  a  high  post  of  honor,  at  least  for  some  three  years  of  the  reign 
of  Cyrus.  These  are  all  the  incidents  recorded  of  a  life  of  some 
seventy  years,  in  connection  with  the  Babylonish  court.  To  speak  of  a 
regular  biography,  then,  as  undertaken  by  Daniel,  would  indicate  a  very 
singular  notion  of  what  belongs  to  his  book. 

As  to  the  Jews,  not  one  word  is  said  concerning  them,  either  as  to 
the  good  or  evil  that  befel  them,  during  their  state  of  exile.  What  was 


382  §  2.   NATURE   AND    DESIGN   OF   THE  BOOK. 

their  condition,  and  what  their  demeanor,  the  writer  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  has  not  undertaken  at  all  to  inform  us. 

In  regard  to  the  native  kings  of  Babylon,  the  names  of  only  two  of 
them  occur,  viz.  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  of  Belshazzar.  Nebuchad 
nezzar  reigned  more  than  forty  years,  and  made  many  conquests.  But 
it  is  only  on  the  occasion  of  his  two  dreams,  and  the  consecration  of  his 
colossal  idol,  that  he  is  brought  to  view,  after  Daniel  becomes  a  member 
of  his  court.  Belshazzar  appears  only  on  the  last  day  of  his  life ;  and 
his  Medo-Persian  successors  are  brought  to  view  in  such  a  way,  that  we 
have  only  a  single  glance  at  them.  Darius'  sad  mistake  in  yielding  to 
the  artifices  of  his  courtiers  to  destroy  Daniel,  is  graphically  placed 
before  us ;  but  nothing  further  is  disclosed  respecting  him.  That  Cy 
rus  succeeded  him  in  the  throne  of  Babylon,  is  all  that  is  said  concern 
ing  him,  excepting  that  he  was  the  friend  of  Daniel. 

The  rest  of  the  book  is  made  up  of  four  prophetic  visions,  seen  be 
tween  B.  C.  555  and  534,  i.  e.  in  the  later  part  of  Daniel's  life.  These 
are  sui  generis  both  in  respect  to  form  and  matter,  to  a  certain  extent ; 
although  in  several  respects  they  strongly  resemble  other  visions  of 
other  prophets  during  the  exile,  e.  g.  those  of  Ezekiel  and  Zachariah. 
The  main  object  of  them  is,  to  show  the  future  condition  and  destiny  of 
the  Jewish  people,  after  the  exile  and  before  the  period  when  their  great 
Deliverer  should  come. 

Some  critics  have  assumed,  that  Daniel  undertook  to  write  his  own 
history  and  that  of  Babylon ;  or  at  least,  that  he  ought  to  have  done  so ; 
and  then  they  take  him  to  task  for  having  performed  his  work  so  imper 
fectly  and  unskilfully.  Others,  perceiving  how  slender  is  the  founda 
tion  on  which  all  this  is  built,  proclaim  (adunco  naso)  that  the  whole 
book  has  a  mere  paraenetic  or  hortatory  object  in  view  ;  and  that  this 
design  is  reached  just  as  well  by  romance  or  allegory  as  by  facts.  They 
compare  the  narratives  in  Daniel  with  the  parables  in  the  Evangelists, 
and  aver,  that  in  both  cases  the  end  is  reached  equally  as  well  by  ro 
mance  as  by  facts.  In  this  way,  all  investigation  as  to  actual  events 
or  occurrences  is  superseded,  or  rendered  a  matter  of  indifference,  and 
it  comes  out  that  we  have  before  us,  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  a  mere 
fiction  or  allegory,  a  part  of  which  has  pretended  facts  for  its  basis,  and 
the  other  part  is  underlaid  by  supposed  prophetic  revelations  and  vis 
ions. 

When  the  question  is  asked :  What  book  in  the  Old  Test,  or  the  New 
stands  on  such  a  basis  ?  it  becomes  difficult  to  give  a  satifactory  answer. 
Strauss,  indeed,  and  those  who  sympathize  with  him,  have  no  difficulty 
in  answering  the  question ;  for  they  take  the  same  position  as  the  ob- 


§  2.  NATURE  AND   DESIGN   OP  THE   BOOK.  383 

jectors  before  us,  with  regard  to  the  Gospels  themselves,  viz.  that  they 
are  but  a  tissue  of  allegories  and  romance.  But  men  of  more  sober 
minds  can  find  but  little  satisfaction,  in  the  assumption  of  positions 
such  as  these. 

When  it  is  said  (as  it  sometimes  has  been),  that  the  design  of  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Daniel  is  wholly  paraenetic,  the  assertion  plainly 
goes  too  far.  The  prophetic  parts  of  this  book  have  surely  but  a  slight 
tinge  of  this  cast.  But  still,  if  I  might  be  permitted  to  define  the  word 
paraenetic,  I  should  not  wish  to  deny  that  the  book  at  large  has  this 
characteristic,  even  in  a  high  degree.  I  understand  this  word  to  designate 
something  that  is  edifying,  and  this  in  the  way  of  warning  and  exhor 
tation  or  excitement.  Most  surely  the  occurrences  related  by  Daniel 
are  deeply  interesting  in  their  nature,  and  highly  adapted  to  make  a 
deep  impression  on  all  minds,  of  the  power  and  goodness  and  holiness 
of  the  Supreme  Being.  Could  Daniel,  or  any  other  prophet,  preach 
more  impressive  sermons  to  Nebuchadnezzar  and  his  court,  than  the 
explanation  of  the  monarch's  dreams,  and  the  defeat  of  his  murderous 
purposes  on  the  plains  of  Dura  ?  Was  there  ever  a  more  impressive 
scene,  than  that  in  Belshazzar's  palace,  on  the  night  of  his  death? 
Could  a  thousand  books  or  addresses  have  made  an  impression  so  deep 
and  awful,  on  the  riotous  and  idolatrous  courtiers  of  the  king,  as  the 
mysterious  hand  writing  on  the  wall,  and  the  interpretation  of  the 
sauae  ?  Or  was  there  any  means  of  securing  to  Daniel  his  place  in  the 
court  of  Darius,  and  afterwards  in  that  of  Cyrus,  so  stringent  and 
effectual,  as  the  deliverance  of  the  Heb.  prophet  from  the  den  of  lions  ? 
All  this  undoubtedly  is  paraenetic,  and  is  so  in  a  high  degree.  Indeed 
the  mind  cannot  well  conceive  of  occasions  that  would  command  a  more 
thrilling  interest,  than  those  related  by  Daniel.  Nothing  trifling,  nothing 
indifferent,  nothing  mediocre,  is  connected  with  them.  They  far  exceed, 
in  point  of  real  interest,  the  renowned  tales  of  oriental  fiction  so  long 
current  and  popular  in  the  West  as  well  as  the  East.  The  reason  is, 
that  the  events  with  which  they  are  concerned  are  of  the  highest  mag 
nitude  and  importance;  and  while  there  is  enough  in  them  of  the 
marvellous  to  gratify  this  craving  of  the  human  mind,  there  is  still 
nothing  of  the  monstrous,  the  absurd,  the  puerile,  and  the  impossible. 
I  speak  of  course  as  a  believer  in  the  possibility  of  miracles  ;  but  even 
those  who  deny  this,  cannot  deny  the  thrilling  interest  of  the  narrations, 
nor  their  adaptedness  to  excite  a  deep  religious  feeling.  What  could  be 
devised  better  to  show  the  heathenish  court  and  city,  that  their  "  idol 
gods  were  a  lie,  and  that  those  who  make  them  are  like  unto  them  ?  " 

The  prophetic  parts  of  the  book  are  designed  more  for  believing 


384:  §  2.    NATURE    AND    DESIGN    OF   THE    BOOK. 

Jews,  than  for  the  heathen.  Yet  even  here  there  is  matter  which 
might  well  instruct  the  heathen,  and  specially  those  of  that  period. 
The  succession  of  the  four  dynasties  was  a  thing  that  could  be  nothing 
more  than  guessed  at,  without  the  aid  of  inspiration.  The  character 
and  demeanor  of  the  Syrian  dynasty  were  matters  in  the  dark,  and  also, 
as  yet,  in  the  distant  future.  Supposing  Daniel  to  have  written  all  the 
predictions '  in  his  book  respecting  this  dynasty,  how  is  it  possible  to 
deny  that  he  had  a  foresight  altogether  supernatural  ?  Josephus  (An- 
tiqq.  x.  ad.  fin.)  argues,  from  this  book  of  Daniel,  the  certainty  of  an 
omniscient  and  omnipotent  overruling  Providence.  The  argument  is 
sound  and  conclusive;  unless  indeed  we  assume,  with  many  recent 
critics,  that  a  miracle  is  an  utter  impossibility. 

But  let  us  view  the  book  before  us  in  another  light.  The  Jews  were 
in  exile,  in  different  parts  of  Babylonia ;  many  of  them  near  the  metro 
polis.  All  captives  in  war  were  universally  considered,  at  that  time,  as 
the  slaves  of  the  conquerors.  In  this  state,  they  must  naturally  have 
been  exposed  to  many  injuries,  insults,  and  severities.  Slavery  is  but 
a  bitter  draught,  even  when  the  potion  is  sweetened.  But  a  slavish 
subjection  of  the  people  of  God  to  a  highly  superstitious  and  idolatrous 
nation,  must,  in  the  usual  course  of  things,  have  exposed  them  to  many 
indignities  and  cruelties.  Was  it  nothing,  then,  to  this  degraded  and 
suffering  people,  that  one  of  their  own  nation  was  the  highest  officer  at 
court,  the  king  excepted  ?  Was  it  nothing,  that  Daniel  and  his  three 
friends  managed  all  the  concerns  of  Babylonia?  Could  they  not,  in 
many  ways,  and  without  exciting  the  suspicion  or  displeasure  of  the 
king,  modify  and  allay  the  severities  to  which  the  exiles  were  exposed, 
and  lighten  the  yoke  that  was  on  their  neck  ?  And  if  the  God  of 
heaven  meant  to  preserve  his  people,  in  the  midst  of  their  chastisement 
and  humiliation,  and  finally  to  restore  them  to  their  country,  was  it 
not  worthy  of  him  to  interpose  as  he  did,  and  order  matters  in  such  a 
way  that  the  Jews  would  be  kept  quiet  until  the  appointed  time,  and 
would  be  protected  from  special  insult  and  injury?  One  can  scarcely 
believe  that  the  miracles  wrought  under  Moses  in  the  wilderness,  were 
more  important  to  the  existence  and  welfare  of  the  Jews,  than  those 
which  were  wrought  in  Babylon. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Babylon  was  to  change  masters.  What  then  would 
the  new  sovereigns  do,  in  regard  to  the  Jews  ?  Would  they  oppress 
them,  as  other  slaves  were  usually  oppressed  ?  Or  would  they  treat 
them  kindly,  and  give  them  their  liberty?  When  Darius  came  to 
the  throne  of  Babylon,  this  was  a  deeply  interesting  question.  The 
time  of  deliverance,  as  predicted  by  Jeremiah,  was  near  at  hand. 


§  2.  NATURE   AND   DESIGN    OP  THE   BOOK.  385 

Much  was  to  be  done.  Darius,  therefore,  and  after  him  Cyrus,  were  to 
be  won  over  to  the  cause  of  the  exiles.  Daniel's  standing  and  relation 
to  these  kings  doubtless  accomplished  this  important  work.  No  sooner 
had  Cyrus  become  seated  on  his  new  throne,  than  he  set  the  whole 
Jewish  nation  free.  All  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  temple  were  given  up 
to  the  returning  exiles,  and  all  persons  were  called  upon  to  encourage 
them,  and  contribute  to  their  holy  and  patriotic  undertaking. 

If  now  the  events  related  in  the  book  of  Daniel  have  evidently  such 
important  ends  in  view,  and  are  well  adapted  to  accomplish  them,  who 
will  deny  the  importance  of  recording  them  for  the  instruction  of  all 
future  ages  ?  Facts  like  these,  which  exhibit  the  power  and  glory  of 
God,  and  show  his  tender  care  for  his  people  even  when  erring  from 
his  ways,  are,  I  readily  concede,  paraenetic  even  in  the  highest  degree. 
But  they  are  far  indeed  from  detracting  from  the  value  of  the  book, 
or  from  being  unworthy  of  the  sacred  records. 

It  has  been  made  an  objection  against  the  book  before  us,  that  it  is  a 
mixture  of  history  and  prediction,  and  thus  exhibits  itself  as  alien  from 
the  Hebrew  prophetic  writing  in  general.  But  this  objection  has  little 
ground  to  support  it.  Is  not  Isaiah  in  part  historical  ?  See  chap,  xxxvi 
— xxxix.  Is  not  almost  one  half  of  Jeremiah  historical  ?  Are  not  parts 
of  Haggai  and  Zechariah  historical  ?  How  is  it  any  objection  to  Daniel, 
then,  that  it  contains  historical  narrations,  when  all  that  is  related  has  a 
most  evident  and  intimate  connection  with  the  welfare  of  the  people, 
and  is  adapted  to  impress  deeply  on  their  minds,  what  God  had  done 
in  their  behalf? 

In  respect  to  the  prophetic  parts  of  the  book,  there  is  no  portion  of  them 
which  does  not  point  the  Jews  to  the  great  Deliverer,  who  was  yet  to  ap 
pear  among  them.  In  regard  to  Messianic  views,  no  prophet  introduces 
them  so  often ;  although  some,  e.  g.  Isaiah,  have  dwelt  longer  on  the  de 
tail.  In  regard  to  the  times  of  distress  and  danger  that  were  yet  to  come, 
we  may  apply  the  common  apothegm :  <  Forewarned,  forearmed.'  Daniel 
and  others  might,  of  themselves,  have  hoped  that  liberation  from  the  Baby 
lonish  exile  would  secure  the  lasting  and  uniform  prosperity  of  the  Jews. 
But  his  visions  warn  him  and  them  not  to  rely  on  false  hopes.  Still  fur 
ther  chastisement  would  be  needed,  and  still  more  would  be  inflicted. 
Rejoice  indeed  they  might ;  but  they  were  warned  to  rejoice  with  trem 
bling. 

One  other  characteristic  of  the  book  deserves  special  notice.  A  por 
tion  —  a  large  one  —  of  its  prophetic  parts  relates  to  a  period  between  the 
return  from  exile  and  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  No  other  prophecy 
has  occupied  this  ground.  With  the  exception  of  the  Messianic  period 

33 


386  §  2.  NATURE  AND  DESIGN  OF  THE  BOOK. 

itself,  all  other  prophetic  books  close,  as  to  any  future,  either  with  the  ex 
ile  itself,  or  with  return  from  it.  Has  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  or  Ezekiel  gone  be 
yond  this,  excepting  in  what  is  Messianic,  much  as  they  have  said  about  the 
«xile  and  the  return  from  it  ?  And  is  there  no  special  propriety  in  Daniel's 
occupying  the  highly  important  ground  in  question  ?  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
and  the  book  of  Esther  have  indeed  related  some  important  occurrences, 
within  the  first  century  after  the  return  from  Babylon.  But  even  the 
latest  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  leave 
more  than  four  centuries  unoccupied  by  prediction,  and  equally  so  by 
history.  The  great  misfortunes  and  sufferings  of  the  Jews,  even  such  as 
in  some  respects  surpassed  those  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  were  yet  to 
come,  and  the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  had  as  yet  no  warning  of  them.  Is  no 
important  object  accomplished,  then,  when  Daniel  fills  up  this  gap  ?  At 
least  it  will  be  acknowledged,  that  the  Jews  had,  and  must  have,  a  deep  in 
terest  in  such  predictions  as  disclosed  to  them  other  times  of  trial  and  of 
danger.  It  cannot  be  charged  upon  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  therefore, 
that  they  are  insignificant  or  unimportant. 

*  But  why  (the  Messianic  period  excepted)  do  his  predictions  stop 
short  with  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ?     The  Jews  had  many 
troubles  after  his  time ;  why  not  predict  and  specify  them  in  like  manner  ?' 
To  these  questions  one  might  reply,  by  asking  why  all  the  other  prophets 
have,  with  the  exception  of  the  Messianic  prophecies,  a  terminus  ad  quern 
short  of  Daniel's  ?     Why  did  they  not  go  beyond  the  exile,  and  the  return 
from  it  ?   But,  passing  this,  I  would  remark,  that,  as  has  already  been 
stated,  neither  Daniel,  nor  any  other  prophet,  undertakes  to  write  annals 
of  the  Jewish  nation.    Ordinary  events  and  occurrences  are  omitted  in 
prophecy.    Daniel  stops  with  those  occurrences  which  were  not  inferior, 
in  point  of  interest,  to  the  Babylonish  captivity  itself.     There  was  even 
more  danger  to  the  religion  of  the  Jews  under  Antiochus'  reign  than  un 
der  Nebuchadnezzar's.      Let  us  see  moreover,  for  a  moment,  whether 
there  is  not  a   natural  turn  (so  to  speak)  given  to  the  mind  of  the 
prophet.    When  the  seventy  years  were  near  to  a  close,  Daniel  prays 
most  earnestly  for  the  promised  deliverance.    Gabriel  then  appears  to  tell 
him,  that  although  one  period  of  seventy  had  now  come  near  its  close, 
yet  another  period  of  seven  times  seventy  awaited  his  people,  one  of 
deep  and  thrilling  interest.    The  city  and  temple  would  indeed  be  re 
built  ;  but  this  would  be  accomplished  in  troublous  times ;  and  at  last 
another  crisis  in  their  affairs  would  come,  not  unlike  that  through  which 
they  had  just  passed.     Jeremiah  had  occupied  his  book  with  the  crisis 
which  had  just  passed ;  Daniel  might  very  naturally  occupy  his  with  the 
one  that  was  yet  to  come. 


§  2.   NATURE   AND  DESIGN  OF   THE   BOOK.  387 

« But  why  not  go  beyond  this  ?'  I  answer  again  by  asking :  Why  did 
not  Jeremiah  go  beyond  the  end  of  the  exile  ?  There  must  be  some 
stopping  place,  unless  prophecy  necessarily  becomes  a  book  of  con 
tinuous  annals.  Enough  for  Daniel,  that  he  looked  forward  to  the  second 
exile  as  it  were,  and  predicted  it.  The  Jews  had  indeed  many  troubles 
after  that  period ;  but  they  bore  no  comparison  with  those  of  the  reign  of 
Antiochus.  They  were  temporary.  They  always  had  their  own  kings 
and  priests.  Even  the  conquest  of  Pompey  (B.  C.  63)  did  not  seriously 
interrupt  the  independence  and  prosperity  of  the  Jews.  He  left  the  tem 
ple  untouched,  with  all  its  sacred  untensils.  It  is  no  objection  then  to  the 
book  before  us,  that  its  predictions  close  with  a  second  horrible  catastro 
phe.  And  surely  it  is  no  unimportant  object  to  be  accomplished  by  it,  to 
disclose  a  sad  catastrophe  which  no  other  prophet  had  foretold. 

Even  those  interpreters  (who  are  quite  numerous),  that  look  upon  the 
book  of  Daniel  as  having  named  a  specific  period  of  seventy  weeks  of 
years  which  reaches  down  to  the  Messiah,  are  obliged  to  confess  its  si 
lence  respecting  events  after  the  reign  of  Antiochus,  and  even  until  the 
Messianic  period.  But  for  the  490  years  which  these  weeks  contain, 
there  has  been  found  by  those  interpreters  no  apposite  terminus  a  quo  ; 
as  we  have  already  seen  in  the  Comm.  on  9:  24 — 27.  That  they  end 
with  the  reign  and  death  of  Antiochus,  I  cannot  doubt ;  although  I  am 
unable  to  make  the  commencement  of  them  clear.  But  as  I  shall  not 
here  renew  the  discussion  of  this  topic,  I  merely  remark,  that  any  a  priori 
prescription  of  the  metes  and  bounds  of  prophecy  must  be  inapposite 
and  irrelevant.  Everything  is  not  predicted,  nor  designed  to  be  predicted. 
We  must  leave  the  matter  of  judging  where  to  stop,  and  what  to  include, 
to  the  prophet  himself.  Enough  in  the  present  case,  that  analogy  drawn 
from  other  prophets  justifies  Daniel  in  stopping  with  a  signal  catastrophe.  (/ 

A  class  of  objectors  to  the  contents  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  different 
from  those  whom  I  have  noticed,  make  the  allegation,  that  *  the  book  has 
no  important  moral  object  in  view.  It  never  preaches,  never  denounces, 
never  threatens,  and  never  promises.  It  is  therefore  unlike  any  other  of 
the  prophecies.' 

But  if  we  should  suppose  the  alleged  histories  in  the  book  to  be  ro 
mance,  or  allegory,  even  then  there  would  be  little  force  in  this  objection. 
Does  not  our  Saviour  teach,  yea  preach,  and  threaten,  and  promise,  and 
exhort,  in  his  parables  ?  Daniel  was  not  by  regular  office  a  prophet ; 
i.  e.  he  was  not  sent  to  the  Jewish  people  in  the  capacity  of  a  public 
teacher.  He  does  not  address  them  at  all,  in  a  direct  manner,  like  Isa 
iah,  Jeremiah,  and  others.  But  are  not  his  narrations  full  of  most 
important  instruction  ?  Are  they  not  comuainatory  to  idolaters,  and  en- 


388  §2.   NATURE~AND    DESIGN    OF   THE  BOOK. 

couraging  and  soul-stirring  to  the  pious?  Are  any  more  lofty  ideas  of 
God,  and  his  superintending  and  remunerating  providence,  anywhere  dis 
closed  ?  Are  not  the  events  then  future,  which  are  disclosed  in  the  pre 
dictions  of  Daniel,  of  thrilling  interest  and  importance  ?  And  with  all  this 
before  us,  are  we  entitled  to  make  such  an  objection  as  that  in  question  ? 

On  another  extreme  are  those  who  assert  that '  the  object  of  the  book 
is  that  of  a  narrow-minded  and  superstitious  Hebrew.  According  to  him, 
there  is  no  God  but  Jehovah ;  and  no  people  but  the  Jews.  Every 
thing  is  purely  national  and  selfish  ;  or  else  it  savors  of  superstition  and 
closely  adheres  to  the  Jewish  ritual.' 

To  the  accusation,  that  Daniel  makes  Jehovah  supreme  and  all  in  all, 
and  the  Jewish  people  his  then  only  chosen  people,  I  plead  guilty  in  his 
behalf.  But  if  there  be  culpable  guilt  or  superstition  in  this,  then  all  the 
Heb.  prophets  lie  under  the  same  condemnation  —  yea,  all  the  O.  Testa 
ment.  But  on  such  points,  accusation  is  eulogy.  God  be  thanked,  that 
there  are  many  millions  who  have  thought  with  Daniel,  and  who  still 
think  and  believe  with  him,  as  to  Jehovah  and  his  chosen  people  !  In 
regard  to  superstition  and  selfishness,  I  am  unable  to  find  either  of  them 
in  the  pages  of  Daniel.  A  more  pious,  devoted,  noble  minded  man  never 
lived.  How  could  he  have  been  so  long  in  the  Babylonish  court,  without 
a  liberality  and  courteousness  of  mind  and  manners  of  which  there  are 
but  few  examples? 

Lengerke  and  others,  who  assign  the  book  to  the  period  of  Antiochus* 
persecutions,  represent '  the  main  object  of  it  to  be,  to  encourage  the  Jew 
ish  people  who  were  suffering  under  them,  and  to  hold  up  to  them,  in  the 
example  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  probable  fate  of  their  tyrannical  op 
pressor.  Everything  throughout  the  book,  it  is  alleged,  is  written  with 
such  a  purpose  in  mind,  and  to  this  both  the  historical  part  and  the  pre 
dictions  have  a  constant  reference.  It  was,  moreover,  this  apropos  char 
acter  and  quality  of  the  book  which  procured  for  it,  at  so  late  a  period,  a 
place  in  the  Jewish  canon.' 

y  I  do  not  feel  disposed  in  any  measure  to  call  in  question  the  fact,  that 
the  book  of  Daniel  was  highly  adapted  to  admonish,  to  comfort,  and  to 
quicken  the  righteous  sufferers,  under  the  cruel  persecutions  of  Epipha- 
i  »  nes ;  nor  that  it  is  a  book  adapted  peculiarly  to  seasons  of  distress  and 
trouble,  at  all  times  and  in  all  countries.  But  that  the  book  was  written 
for  the  purpose  of  making  Nebuchadnezzar  an  allegorical  personage, 
whose  real  antitype  was  Antiochus,  I  must  be  permitted  to  call  in  ques 
tion.  Some  features  of  mutual  resemblance  indeed  there  are,  as  there 
always  must  be  between  men  who  are  tyrants  and  oppressors  and  plun 
derers.  But  beyond  the  facts,  that  both  of  these  kings  overran  and 


§2.   NATURE  AND   DESIGN   OP  THE    BOOK.  389 

subdued  Palestine,  and  took  possession  of  its  capital  city ;  that  both  of 
them  rifled  the  temple  of  many  of  its  treasures,  and  destroyed  many  of 
the  Jews  in  war  —  beyond  these  facts,  there  is  little  in  common  between 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  Antiochus.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  no  persecutor  for 
the  sake  of  religion.  With  the  exception  of  the  three  Jewish  worthies 
who  were  cast  into  the  furnace  of  fire,  (and  this  because  they  publicly  re 
fused  to  obey  the  king's  orders  to  prostrate  themselves  before  his  idol, 
and  thus,  as  he  viewed  the  matter,  showed  him  disrespect),  we  read  of  no 
persecution  for  the  sake  of  religion  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  time.  We  are 
told  indeed  by  Jeremiah  (29:  22),  that  the  king  of  Babylon  roasted  Zede- 
kiah  and  Ahab  in  the  fire.  But  it  appears  from  the  context,  that  these 
were  false  prophets  and  preachers  of  sedition  among  the  Hebrew  captives. 
In  all  probability  it  was  for  reasons  of  State,  that  they  were  sentenced  to 
death.  But  in  all  the  accounts  we  have  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  demeanor 
in  respect  to  the  Jews  in  exile,  we  have  nothing  to  excite  suspicion  that 
he  was  a  bigoted  persecutor,  or  even  a  persecutor  at  all.  In  accordance 
with  the  war-usages  of  the  times,  Nebuchadnezzar,  when  provoked  by  the 
frequent  rebellion  of  the  Jews,  made  havoc  among  their  leaders,  after 
they  had  been  conquered  in  battle.  But  none  of  the  prophets,  during  the 
exile,  have  told  us  of  anything  which  he  did  to  the  Jews,  which  resembled 
the  furious  and  bloody  and  long-continued  persecutions  of  Antiochus. 
Nebuchadnezzar  destroyed  the  temple,  because  he  knew  it  would  be  a 
rallying  point  for  the  Jewish  nation.  But  Antiochus,  the  DafeJB ,  made  it 
desolate  and  polluted  it  by  his  abominations,  his  statue  of  Jupiter  with  his 
eagle,  and  his  offerings  of  swine's  flesh  on  the  altar.  He  also  sought  to 
destroy  every  copy  of  the  Jewish  sacred  books,  and  punished  with  death 
those  who  concealed  them  from  him.  He  bribed  apostate  Jews  to  prac 
tise  the  heathen  rites,  and  deluged  with  blood  the  holy  city  for  several 
years.  We  have  no  account  that  Nebuchadnezzar  did  anything  like  to 
this.  We  do  not  read  of  his  prohibiting  the  Jews  to  retain  their  Scrip 
tures,  or  of  his  obliging  them  to  desist  from  their  worship  and  rites.  It  is 
impossible  to  suppose,  with  any  probability,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  had 
any  bitter  and  bigoted  resentment  against  the  Jews  as  such.  If  so,  how 
could  he  have  constituted  a  Jew  his  prime  minister,  and  his  three  intimate 
friends  satraps  in  Babylonia  ?  It  lies  on  the  face  of  the  whole  narration, 
that  the  state  of  the  Jews  at  that  period  must  have  been  rendered  quite 
tolerable,  in  a  civil  and  social  respect,  under  such  a  viceroy  and  such 
governors.  The  advice  which  Jeremiah  gives  them  (ch.  xxix),  shows 
that  the  exiles  were  far  from  being  in  a  very  degraded  state,  or  destitute 
of  many  important  privileges. 

Compare  now  with  all  this,  the  doings  of  Antiochus  as  related  in 


390  §  2   NATURE   AND   DESIGN  OF   THE   BOOK. 

1  Mace.  i.  seq.  In  common,  both  the  king  of  Babylon  and  the  king  of 
Syria  were  conquerors,  and  masters  of  Judea  for  a  time.  But  the 
demeanor  of  Nebuchadnezzar  toward  the  vanquished,  and  that  of  Anti- 
ochus,  was  as  discrepant  as  we  can  well  imagine. 

Why  then  should  a  writer,  in  the  time  of  Antiochus,  go  aoont  invent 
ing  a  fictitious  exemplar  of  that  tyrant,  and  yet  make  it  so  widely 
diverse,  that  one  can  scarcely  find  any  analogy  between  the  two  cases, 
excepting  that  of  original  conquest  and  pillage?  A  very  unskilful 
writer  of  fiction  he  must  have  been,  not  to  make  the  prototype  more 
like  the  antitype.  Even  as  to  temper  and  character,  the  two  kings  were 
very  unlike.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  indeed  haughty,  and  passionate,  and 
during  his  passion  he  wras  cruel.  But  he  had  his  seasons  of  deep 
relenting,  and  could  be  made  to  feel  the  force  of  an  appeal  to  that  God 
who  alone  is  supreme.  It  seems  even  probable  from  Dan.  iv.,  that  he  died 
at  last  a  penitent  and  a  believer.  But  Antiochus  had  all  his  bad  quali 
ties,  without  any  of  his  good  ones.  He  was  relentless,  bigoted  to  the  last 
degree,  cruel  beyond  any  precedent  where  his  anger  had  been  excited, 
and  irascible  to  an  extreme.  Well  was  he  nicknamed  imfiarqS'  Be 
sides  all  this,  he  was  avaricious,  debauched  beyond  all  measure,  mean, 
contemptible,  (^t^3  as  Daniel  very  appropriately  calls  him),  and  withal 
very  arrogant  and  ambitious.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  his  parallel, 
even  in  a  Tiberius,  a  Caligula,  or  a  Nero. 

To  me  it  would  appear  a  matter  of  wonder,  that  a  writer  having  such 
an  object  in  view  as  that  of  making  out  a  prototype  for  Antiochus, 
should  have  succeeded  so  ill,  since  he  has  manifested,  in  many  parts  of 
his  book,  ideas  and  emotions  that  are  truly  sublime  and  striking.  That 
a  man  of  even  mediocre  talent,  should  not  better  succeed,  must  be  a 
matter  of  surprise  to  all,  in  case  we  make  the  main  object  of  the  book 
to  be  what  Lengerke  asserts  it  to  be. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Lengerke  and  his  liberal  friends  declare  unhesi 
tatingly  their  disbelief  of  all  miracles.  Of  course,  they  deny  that  pre 
diction^  in  a  truly  prophetic  sense,  is  any  where  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible.  Of  course  Daniel  could  really  predict  nothing.  But  as  his 
book  contains  many  things,  which  if  written  during  the  exile,  must  be 
considered  as  real  predictions,  it  follows  of  course,  as  they  conclude, 
that  the  book  could  have  been  written  only  after  the  events  described 
had  taken  place. 

But  here  is  some  substantial  disagreement  with  the  positions  that  we 
have  just  been  examining.  Daniel,  they  say,  was  written  in  the  time 
of  the  Maccabees,  to  encourage  and  comfort  the  Jews  under  persecu 
tion.  Of  course,  if  this  were  the  object,  it  must  have  been  written 


§  2.  NATURE   AND    DESIGN   OP  THE  BOOK.  391 

when  the  persecution  was  going  on,  i.  e.  during  the  life  of  Antiochus. 
But  how  then  did  the  writer  come  to  know  so  much  about  the  death  of 
Antiochus  ?  How  did  he  know  that  this  would  happen  at  the  end  of 
the  last  week  of  the  70  weeks  ?  To  fill  this  gap,  Bleek  alleges,  that 
chaps,  x — xii.  were  written  after  his  death,  so  that  it  is  prophecy  post 
eventum.  But  unluckily  for  this  subterfuge,  Dan.  7 :  24 — 26  predicts 
his  death  after  a  definite  period,  viz.  after  the  last  half  of  the  final  week 
of  years.  It  is  also  again  predicted  in  Dan.  8 : 23 — 25,  where  it  is 
explicitly  stated,  that  Antiochus  shall  be  crushed,  not  in  war,  nor  by 
human  power,  but  by  the  mighty  hand  of  the  Prince  of  princes, 
without  human  aid.  Dan.  9 :  26,  27,  repeats  the  same  declarations. 
Here  then  the  time  and  manner  of  Antiochus'  death  are  both  explicitly 
declared.  How  now  could  a  writer  under  his  reign,  foresee  all  this, 
without  the  spirit  of  prophecy  ?  And  of  what  use  is  it  to  tell  us,  that 
chap,  x — xii.  at  least  were  written  post  eventiim  ?  If  we  concede  it,  it 
does  not  in  the  least  remove  our  difficulty  with  the  theory  in  question. 

At  all  events,  then,  those  who  reject  prophecy  as  an  impossibility, 
must  maintain  that  the  whole  book  of  Daniel  (comp.  2  :  40 — 43)  was 
written  after  the  death  of  Antiochus.  But  here  again  we  have  a 
V6T&QOV  TIQOVEQOV.  If  such  were  the  case,  then  what  need  of  the  parce- 
netics  addressed  to  the  persecuted  ?  Antiochus  was  dead ;  Judas  was 
triumphant ;  Judea  was  free ;  her  temple  was  cleansed  and  reconse 
crated,  and  all  its  holy  rites  and  privileges  renewed.  Did  the  Jews 
need  the  exhortation  and  consolation  addressed  to  the  persecuted,  when 
it  was  with  them  a  time  of  feasting,  and  of  keeping  their  national 
thanksgiving  ?  Rather,  we  should  suppose,  did  the  times  call  for  some-  A/ 
thing  like  Ex.  xv.,  or  Ps.  Ixviii.,  or  Is.  xiv. 

And  then,  (I  cannot  help  asking  the  question)  :  How  were  the  Jews 
of  that  period,  led  on  by  such  men  as  Mattathias,  and  Judas,  and  Simon, 
to  be  convinced  that  a  book  just  written,  and  never  before  heard  of,  was 
the  work  of  a  man  who  lived  more  than  four  centuries  before,  and 
deserved  a  place  in  their  sacred  canon,  now  rendered  doubly  dear  by 
persecution,  and  by  the  efforts  to  destroy  it  ?  Believe  all  this  who  may, 
I  must  regard  it  as  a  stretch  of  credulity  far  beyond  that  belief  which 
others  cherish,  who  are  accused  of  an  a  priori  faith,  and  are  treated  y 
with  so  much  scorn  on  account  of  it. 

That  the  book  of  Daniel  may  profit  the  people  of  God  at  all  times 
and  in  all  places,  I  have  fully  conceded.     But  that  it  was  written  in  An- 
tiochian  times,  and  for  such  a  specific  purpose  as  is  alleged,  and  was 
foisted  at  that  time  into  the  Jewish  canon,  are  assertions  which  require  y 
better  evidence  to  establish  them  than  has  yet  been  adduced. 


392  STYLE   AND   AESTHETICAL    CHARACTER. 

Enough  has  been  said,  to  show  the  moral,  religious,  and,  I  may  add, 
political  or  civil  designs  and  objects  of  the  book  before  us.  It  does  not, 
like  most  of  the  prophets,  contain  preaching  or  hortatory  addresses. 
But  both  its  narratives  and  its  predictions  are  full  of  interesting  and 
important  instruction.  In  one  particular  it  differs  from  most  of  the 
other  prophetic  books.  It  contains  predictions  that  relate  to  a  series  of 
successive  empires,  in  middle  and  hither  Asia.  The  like  is  not  else 
where  to  be  met  with.  But  it  is  not  of  these  empires  because  they  are 
such,  or  rather,  it  is  not  of  them  historically  regarded  as  empires,  that  it 
treats.  It  is  of  them  only  as  standing  in  relation  to  or  in  connection 
with  the  Jews,  that  it  speaks.  When  it  was  written,  the  first  of  the  four 
great  empires  had  attained  its  height  of  power.  The  prophet  follows 
on  to  sketch  very  briefly  the  fall  of  all  the  four  great  dynasties,  until  he 
comes  to  the  last,  on  which  he  dwells  more  than  on  all  the  others, 
merely  because  the  Jews  were  more  affected  by  it  than  by  all  the  rest. 
It  lies  upon  the  very  face  of  his  predictions,  that  such  is  the  nature  of 
his  design.  Having  brought  his  people  to  what  we  may  call  their 
second  exile,  (for  multitudes  did  in  reality  become  exiles  and  fled  to 
the  caves  and  deserts),  he  breaks  off  here,  with  the  exception  of  dis 
closing  a  future  great  Deliverer  and  Saviour,  whose  kingdom  is  to  be 
universal.  It  was  not  to  his  purpose,  to  pursue  the  detail  of  historic 
facts  any  further. 

That  he  has  left  behind  him  a  book  of  the  deepest  interest,  to  all  who 
admit  the  miracles  of  the  Bible,  none  I  think  will  question.  We  should 
lose  an  important  link  in  the  golden  chain  of  revelation,  if  this  were 
struck  out.  My  belief  is,  that  all  the  efforts  of  unbelieving  and  sneer 
ing  criticism  will  not  be  able  to  remove  it  from  its  place. 

§  3.  Style  and  aesthetical  character  of  the  book. 

No  one  can  pass  from  the  reading  of  such  books  as  Isaiah,  Nahum, 
Habakkuk,  and  some  other  of  the  Minor  Prophets,  to  the  study  of  Dan 
iel,  without  perceiving  a  great  change.  The  characteristic,  and  (when 
well  understood)  delightful  poetic  parallelism  which  pervades  them,  is 
here  unfrequent  and  but  faintly  marked.  The  like  may  be  said  of  most 
of  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  the  first  eight  chapters  of  Zechariah,  Jonah,  Hag- 
gai,  and  Malachi.  The  prophetic  parts  of  all  these  books  are  often  pro 
saic  in  their  form,  even  when  animated  by  a  poetic  spirit.  Above  all, 
Daniel  approaches  nearest  to  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah  in  manner  and 
style,  although  not  in  matter.  Like  these  prophets,  he  deals  everywhere 
with  symbols  and  visions.  They  were,  the  one  his  contemporary,  and 


§3.   STYLE  AND   AESTHETICAL    CHARACTEB.  393 

the  other  but  little  after  him ;  and  all  three  formed  their  style  and  their 
modes  of  thinking  and  expression  in  a  foreign  land,  where  symbol,  and 
imagery,  and  vision,  and  dreams,  were  greatly  relished  and  admired. 
The  ruins  of  the  oriental  cities  recently  brought  to  the  light  of  day,  as 
well  as  those  which  have  ever  remained  exposed  to  view,  are  replete 
with  symbolic  forms  and  images  which  once  gave  play  and  delight  to  the 
fancy.  Nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that  the  exiled  prophets  were  strong 
ly  influenced  in  their  style,  by  the  training  which  their  condition  necessari 
ly  gave  them.  Hence  the  great  dissimilitude  between  them  and  (for  ex 
ample)  such  a  writer  as  Isaiah.  Our  aesthetical  judgment  is  strongly 
biassed  in  favor  of  such  writers  as  Isaiah,  and  Nahum,  and  Habakkuk ; 
perhaps  justly.  But  this  cannot  prove,  that  the  Jews  in  exile  would  not 
have  a  higher  relish  for  the  manner  of  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah.  It  may 
indeed  be  taken  for  granted  that  such  was  the  case ;  for  otherwise,  we 
can  hardly  suppose  these  prophets  would  have  so  far  departed  from  the 
ancient  models.  That  they  possessed  talents  competent  to  writing  in 
another  style,  cannot  well  be  doubted  by  any  one  who  has  studied  their 
works. 

In  the  narratives  of  Daniel,  there  is  a  copiousness  and  exuberance  of 
diction,  approaching  that  of  Ezekiel.  There  is  also  a  strong  tinge  of  the 
dramatic,  in  the  change  of  scenes,  and  of  persons  and  their  respective  ad 
dresses.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  impression  on  the  reader  is  strong 
and  vivid.  The  writer  never  tires  us,  nor  suffers  his  narrative  to  halt 
and  delay.  If  the  story,  in  some  cases,  might  be  more  simply  and  brief 
ly  told,  it  is  quite  doubtful  whether  it  would  not  lose  in  interest,  what  it 
might  gain  in  normal  rhetoric. 

In  the  narratives  are  frequent  bursts  of  feeling  which  give  much  ad 
ditional  interest  to  the  pious  mind.  For  example,  in  2:  19 — 23.  In 
the  interpretation  of  dreams  and  visions,  there  are  many  passages  that 
attain  to  the  true  sublime ;  e.  g.  2:  27 — 45.  4:  19—27.  5:  17—28.  In 
fearless  and  unshaken  fidelity  and  boldness,  these  last  two  passages  are 
no  where  surpassed ;  while  at  the  same  time  all  becoming  respect  and 
courteousness  are  duly  observed.  In  the  prophetic  portions,  there  are 
passages  which  reach  the  height  of  sublimity ;  e.  g.  7:  9 — 12.  8:  23 — 25. 
10:  5—9.  11:  40—45  with  12:  1—3.  Not  unfrequently,  do  many  pas 
sages  here  approach  near  to  the  manner  of  the  older  prophets,  and  bor 
der  upon  the  higher  poetry.  The  spirit  of  poetry,  indeed,  mingles  itself 
more  or  less  with  nearly  all  parts  ff  the  work.  The  whole  tone  is  sol 
emn,  grave,  elevated,  and  adapted  to  produce  serious,  lively,  and  deep 
impressions.  That  the  manner  and  style  are  oriental,  may  be  readily 
acknowledged ;  for  how  could  the  book  well  be  supposed  to  be  genuine, 


394  §3.    STYLE   AND    AESTHETICAL    CHARACTER. 

if  they  were  not  so  ?     That  none  of  the  visions  will  aesthetically  compare 
with  Is.  vi.  or  Ps.  xviii.,  we  may  easily  concede ;  but  then  where  are  the 
compositions  that  will  compare  with  those  theophanies  ?      But  the  read 
er  of  Ezekiel,  or  Zechariah,  or  Malachi,  or  Haggai,  or  Jonah,  will  con 
cede  to  Daniel  a  place  in  aesthetics  decidedly  above  theirs.     The  book 
contains  in  itself  no  good  reason,  why  the  Masorites  should  have  ejected  it 
from  its  place  among  the  prophets,  and  none  that  render  it  unworthy  of 
a  place  in  the  Canon. 

That  the  book  is  not  of  the  same  stamp  as  the  older  prophets,  may  be 
readily  conceded;  but  this  only  puts  it  on  the  same  ground  with 
Ezekiel  and  some  four  or  five  of  the  Minor  Prophets.  That  it  was 
adapted  to  the  taste  of  the  later  Jews,  is  abundantly  evident  from  the 
numerous  writings  that  have  attempted  to  imitate  it,  near  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  era.  Besides,  of  all  books  in  the  Old  Test.,  John  in 
his  Apocalypse  has  most  closely  followed  this.  As  the  standard  of 
taste,  in  various  respects,  is  not  absolute  and  unlimited,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  decide  with  much  positiveness,  that  Daniel  is  not  en 
titled  to  most  respectful  consideration,  in  regard  to  manner  as  well 
as  matter ;  at  any  rate,  to  decide  that  he  was  not  so  considered  among 
his  own  people,  and  in  ancient  times.  Cicero  and  Tacitus  are  exceed 
ingly  unlike ;  but  a  scholar  may  admit  both  to  a  high  place  in  his  re 
gard.  Daniel  and  Isaiah  are  very  unlike ;  but  I  know  of  no  offence 
against  the  laws  of  taste,  when  one  relishes  them  both.  God,  in  his 
wisdom,  has  introduced  all  kinds  of  style  into  his  word ;  so  that  all 
varieties  of  taste  may  be  gratified.  When  God  speaks  to  men,  he 
speaks  more  humane.  We  should  love  and  prize  the  Bible  the  more 
for  this.  It  bears  internal  marks  in  abundance,  of  having  been  com 
posed  by  different  persons,  in  different  ages  and  countries.  This  to  us 
is  an  evidence,  that  it  is  what  it  claims  to  be. 

In  regard  to  the  idiom  of  the  book,  I  shall  have  something  to  say  in 
the  following  section.  Its  style  and  aesthetical  character  are  little,  if 
any,  affected  by  this.  It  is  the  matter  of  the  book,  its  narratives  and 
course  of  thought,  that  create  an  interest  in  the  mind  of  the  reader.  The 
mass  of  religious  readers  are,  as  I  apprehend,  more  interested  in  it  than 
in  almost  any  other  prophetic  composition.  There  are  indeed  many 
things  in  the  prophetic  part,  which  they  do  not  well  understand.  And 
this  is  true  of  nearly  all  the  prophets.  But  still,  these  are  fraught  with 
such  a  spirit  of  piety  and  reverence^br  God,  that  they  are  not  without 
interest  even  to  them.  The  more  intelligent  reader,  who  is  familiar 
with  oriental  manners  and  customs  and  objects,  cannot  fail  to  read  all 
parts  of  the  book  with  much  interest.  The  God  who  guides  the  affairs 


§  4.   LANGUAGE  AND   IDIOM.  395 

of  nations  and  rules  over  all,  is  every  where  supreme,  and  every  where 
prominent.  His  providential  care  and  guardianship  over  his  true 
worshippers  and  chosen  people,  stand  in  high  relief  upon  its  pages,  and 
cannot  fail  to  interest  and  instruct  the  pious  and  docile  reader. 


§  4.  Language  and  Idiom  of  the  Book. 

The  language  is  nearly  half  Chaldee,  and  the  other  half  Hebrew. 
Chap.  ii.  4,  and  on  to  the  end  of  chap,  vii.,  is  the  Hebrew-  Chaldee.  I 
give  it  this  name,  because  of  the  many  conformities  to  the  Hebrew  in 
orthography,  and  also  in  the  use  of  particular  conjugations  (e.  g.  Hiphil 
instead  of  Aphel),  which  it  exhibits.  The  use  of  n-  final,  instead  of 
the  later  Chaldee  x-  every  where  abounds.  Still,  we  are  not  secure  in 
the  position,  that  the  Chaldee  of  the  time  of  Daniel  was  not  different, 
in  the  respects  mentioned,  from  that  in  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and 
Jonathan.  It  is  by  comparison  with  these  last  named  writings,  that  we 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  Daniel  is  Hebrew-  Chaldee.  But  it  may  be, 
that  in  the  time  of  Daniel,  the  Chaldee  of  the  Babylonish  court  was 
much  nearer  ,to  that  in  his  book,  than  the  Chaldee  of  the  Targums. 
Indeed,  this  is  not  at  all  improbable. 

At  all  events,  we  have  convincing  evidence  that  Daniel  wrote  such 
Chaldee  as  was  current  among  the  Hebrews  of  that  period.  The  book 
of  Ezra,  which  contains  several  chapters  of  Chaldee,  exhibits  the  same 
language  in  all  characteristic  respects,  as  the  Chaldee  part  of  Daniel. 
It  is  a  striking  testimony  in  favor  of  the  position,  that  these  two  books 
were  nearly  coetaneous.  Later  Hebrew  writers  of  the  Chaldee  must 
have  approached  nearer  to  the  idiom  of  the  Targums.  If  the  original 
Hebrew  of  the  son  of  Sirach,  or  of  Tobit,  were  extant,  we  could  better 
judge  what  the  state  of  the  Chaldaizing  Hebrew  of  their  day  was,  and 
thus  obtain  many  illustrations  of  the  Chaldee  at  that  period,  i.  e.  about 
180  B.  C.  We  can  hardly  believe  that  such  men  as  Daniel  and  Ezra 
were  half  learned  in  the  Chaldee  of  their  time ;  and  therefore  when  we 
speak  of  their  books  as  containing  Chaldaic-Jfebrew,  we  say  this  merely 
by  referring  to  the  Chaldee  of  the  Targums  as  a  standard. 

As  to  the  Hebrew  part  of  Daniel,  it  has  been  charged  with  deep 
declension  from  the  early  and  pure  Hebrew.  Nay,  it  is  even  insisted  on, 
that  it  is  a  farrago  of  Aramaean  and  Talmudico-Rabbinic ;  Knobel, 
Heb.  Prophet.  §  40.  4.  Lengerke  makes  similar  charges.  With  all 
becoming  deference  to  these  critics,  I  venture  to  deny  this  charge.  The 
production  of  some  8  or  10  words,  which  are  of  the  character  in  ques 
tion,  has  but  little  weight  in  such  a  matter.  Where  is  the  book  in  the 


396  §  4.   LANGUAGE  AND    IDIOM   OF   THE   BOOK. 

Bible,  of  any  considerable  length,  which  could  not  be  proved  to  be 
Aramaic  or  Rabbinic,  if  some  few  words  approaching  or  conforming  to 
these  idioms  constitute  a  proof?  It  does  not  follow,  most  surely,  that 
such  words  as  are  ana%  bytyi&a,  are  of  course  late  Hebrew.  "What 
Hebrew  writer  has  not  some  such  words  ? 

The  truth  is,  that  all  the  usual  laws  of  the  Hebrew,  both  as  to  syntax 
and  to  forms,  reign  throughout  the  Hebrew  of  this  book.  The  Hebrew 
itself  approaches  nearer  the  golden  age  than  that  of  Ezra,  or  of  Ezekiel ; 
I  might  almost  say,  than  that  of  Jeremiah.  But  if  the  book  be  genuine, 
then  should  the  Hebrew  belong  to  the  silver  age ;  like  that  of  nearly 
all  the  later  Hebrew  writers.  Coheletk  was,  not  long  since,  put  down  to 
a  very  late  age,  on  the  ground  of  the  like  charge.  But  since  Hirtzfeld 
published  his  commentary  on  this  book,  I  believe  little  has  been  said 
against  the  book  of  Coheleth  on  this  ground.  At  least,  there  can  but 
little  be  justly  said. 

That  the  book  of  Daniel  contains  Hebrew  words  used  in  the  sense 
of  a  later  age,  can  surely  not  aid  the  objector  to  its  genuineness.  On  the 
contrary,  that  fact  helps  to  establish  its  genuineness.  Daniel,  when  a 
child,  was  brought  to  Babylon  and  instructed  in  the  language  and 
learning  of  the  Ghaldees  by  the  court-teachers.  That  he  wrote  and 
spoke  both  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  with  ease,  and  equally  well,  is  proved 
from  the  manner  of  his  diction  throughout.  With  the  exception,  that 
the  reader  finds  himself  passing  into  a  Chaldee  element,  or  rather,  that 
he  meets  the  author  in  Chaldee  costume,  all  is  the  same.  The  very 
same  person  is  actor  and  speaker  through  and  through.  If  he  addresses 
us  in  his  Chaldee  costume  to-day,  tomorrow  he  comes  in  a  Hebrew 
dress,  but  with  the  same  face  and  manners  as  before.  This  is  all  the 
difference  that  is  perceivable,  between  the  two  parts  of  the  book.  There 
is  not  a  composition  in  all  the  Bible,  that  bears  stronger  marks  of  unity 
and  identity  of  authorship.  The  peculiarities  of  the  writer  are  so  many 
and  so  striking,  that  it  is  impossible  to  overlook  them  or  lose  sight  of 
them.  We  know  nothing  more  of  passing  from  Hebrew  to  Chaldee, 
and  then  from  Chaldee  to  Hebrew,  than  that  we  are  reading  different 
dialects  indeed,  but  not  different  compositions.  Never  was  there  an 
author  who  is  more  completely  himself,  and  semper  idem  throughout. 

It  is  the  matter,  not  the  manner  or  style,  of  Daniel,  which  makes  it  a 
difficult  book  for  readers.  The  sentences  are  not  particularly  involved 
or  intricate.  Ellipsis  is  not  so  frequent  as  in  some  other  Hebrew 
books.  But  the  symbols  are  sometimes  of  such  a  nature  that  they  do 
not  interpret  themselves,  and  need  the  interposition  of  the  angel-interpre 
ter  who  holds  intercourse  with  the  prophet.  To  make  a  proper  applica- 


§  4.   LANGUAGE   AND    IDIOM.  397 

tion  of  his  predictions  to  events  in  history,  an  extended  knowledge  of 
history  is  needed.  But  this  does  not  result  from  any  fault  in  the  dic 
tion,  or  from  want  of  skill  in  the  language.  It  results  from  the  nature 
of  prediction,  when  it  is  clothed  in  symbols  and  trope. 

It  has  been  objected  to  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  that  it  contains 
two  different  languages.  Why  not  reject  the  book  of  Ezra  then,  if 
such  a  ground  be  tenable  ?  With  as  little,  or  perhaps  less,  apparent 
reason,  this  latter  book  passes  more  than  once  from  Hebrew  to  Chaldee. 
I  do  not  undertake  to  give  a  specific  reason  why  Daniel  wrote  in  two 
languages.  But  this  is  plain,  viz.,  that  he  is  equally  at  home  in  both. 
Another  thing  also  is  plain,  viz.,  that  when  his  book  was  written,  the 
great  mass  of  the  Jews  in  Babylon  must  have  been  more  familiar  withj  lv/VM- 
Chaldee  than  with  Hebrew.  Still  the  Hebrew  as  a  written  language 


was,  if  I  may  so  speak,  a  living  one.    All  learned  or  well  instructed 

'A/,- 

ries  to  the  Arabians  in  Palestine,  shows  that  it  is  mere  pastime  for 


persons  could  read  it  with  ease.     Recent  experience  among  Missiona-     A^ 


them  to  learn  the  Hebrew.  So  it  must  have  been  with  the  second 
generation  of  the  Hebrews  in  exile. 

That  Daniel  had  reasons  for  the  exchange  of  languages,  which 
satisfied  his  own  mind,  it  is  needless  to  suggest,  since  he  has  done  it. 
But  if  his  work  be  supposititious,  as  so  many  recent  critics  allege,  and  if 
it  belongs  to  the  age  of  the  Maccabees,  what  inducement  could  the 
romancer  have  to  write  in  two  languages?  If  it  be  said,  (as  it  has 
been),  that  this  might  help  to  palm  off  his  book  on  the  public  as  a  more 
ancient  one,  the  reply  is,  that  there  are  prophets  contemporaneous  and 
subsequent,  who  had  lived  in  Babylonia,  but  whose  books  are  not  bilin 
gual.  It  would  have  been  no  matter  of  supicion,  then,  if  all  of  Daniel 
had  been  composed  in  Hebrew.  But  that  a  Jew  of  the  Maccabaean 
period  could  write  such  Chaldee,  or  such  Hebrew,  as  Daniel  has  writ 
ten,  is  much  against  all  probability.  Would  that  Jerome  had  given  us 
Sirach  and  Tobit  in  the  originals !  It  would  then  be  more  easy  to 
decide.  But  that  the  Chaldee  remained  so  exactly  of  the  same  type 
as  that  in  Ezra,  down  to  the  period  of  the  Maccabees,  is  against  prob 
ability.  The  present  Chaldee  of  the  book  is  an  evident  pledge  for  its 
more  advanced  age.  All  the  later  Chaldee  that  we  know  of,  is  discrep 
ant  in  many  important  respects  from  that  in  Daniel  and  Ezra.  Whence 
then  can  the  probability  be  made  out,  that  a  writer  of  the  Maccabaean 
period,  should  be  able,  or  be  induced,  to  write  in  the  older  Chaldee  ? 

Knobel  objects  to  the  Chaldee  part  of  Daniel,  that  it  contains  Persian 
words.  His  inference  would  be,  that  the  Persian,  in  Daniel's  time,  could 
not  have  influenced  the  Chaldee,  and  therefore  the  book  must  have  been 

34 


398  §  5.  UNITY  OR  SAMENESS  OF  AUTHORSHIP. 

written  at  a  later  period.  But  of  these  so  called  Persian  words,  he  has 
produced  only  three,  viz.  ns ,  ftat.as  and  cars .  The  Persian  origin  of 
the  two  first  is  altogether  doubtful  (see  Ges.  Lex.)  ;  and  as  to  the  third, 
Fuerst  (Heb.  Concord.)  decides  strongly  against  the  Persian  origin,  as 
he  also  does  against  that  of  the  other  two ;  and  seemingly  with  good  rea 
son.  On  what  a  slight  and  sandy  foundation,  then,  does  Knobel  take 
his  station,  when  he  assails  the  genuineness  of  the  book  on  such  a  ground ! 
Even  if  the  words  were  Persian,  or  rather  Parsi,  how  could  it  be  shown 
that  the  Chaldeans  who  came  from  the  country  of  the  Parsis,  did  not 
incorporate  some  of  the  words  of  their  vernacular  with  the  language 
which  they  spoke  in  the  time  of  Daniel  ? 

Finally,  the  resemblance  of  Daniel  to  Ezekiel  is  so  striking  as  to  the 
use  of  many  words  peculiar  to  the  later  Hebrew,  that  Lengerke  maintains 
a  designed  imitation  of  the  latter,  by  the  late  writer  of  the  former.  Yet 
what  there  is  of  argument  in  this,  to  prove  the  lateness  of  the  book  of 
Daniel,  I  cannot  see.  Lengerke  first  assumes  that  the  book  of  Daniel  is 
supposititious,  and  then  accounts  for  its  resemblance  to  Ezekiel  with 
regard  to  diction,  by  asserting  that  it  is  an  imitation.  But  what  hinders 
us  from  reversing  the  process,  and  reasoning  thus :  Daniel  was  first 
written,  and  Ezekiel  copied  after  him  ?  If  Lengerke  reasons  correctly, 
then  we  may  go  a  step  farther,  and  make  another  syllogism  thus :  The 
Ascensio  Isaiae  has  many  things  in  common  with  the  scriptural  Isaiah; 
therefore  the  author  of  the  latter  must  have  copied  from  the  former.  It 
may  be  convenient,  for  certain  purposes,  to  argue  in  such  a  way,  where 
a  point  is  to  be  carried  at  all  adventures,  and  one  commences  with  a  — 
delenda  est  Carthago.  But  it  makes  not  much  in  favor  of  a  cause,  to 
employ  such  argumentation  in  its  behalf.  After  all,  moreover,  the  re 
semblances  between  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  by  no  means  prove  copying  in 
either.  They  show  contemporaneousness  in  the  writers,  beyond  fair 
doubt ;  but  not  the  dependence  of  either  upon  the  other. 

§  5.   Unity  of  the  look  or  sameness  of  Authorship. 

Bertholdt  was  the  first,  I  believe,  to  divide  the  book  of  Daniel  into 
nine  parts,  and  assign  to  it  so  many  different  authors.  This  was  such 
an  extravagance  in  criticism,  that  it  has  had  but  few  if  any  advocates  or 
imitators.  Eichhorn  contented  himself  with  two  authors,  one  for  the 
history,  and  another  for  the  prophecies.  The  conclusion  of  both  these 
writers  is,  that  the  book  is  a  mish-mash,  made  up  by  some  later  writer  in 
the  way  of  compiling  fragments  from  different  compositions.  But  this 
ground  has  long  since  been  abandoned,  even  by  the  so  called  liberal 


§  5.  UNITY  OR  SAMENESS  OF  AUTHORSHIP.  399 

critics.  Bleek,  who  is  one  of  them,  first  gave  this  criticism  a  death-blow ; 
and  it  is  not  probable  that  it  will  ever  attain  to  a  resurrection  ;  (Theol. 
Zeitschr.  No.  3.  s.  242.  if.).  It  is  needless,  therefore,  to  discuss  this  matter 
at  any  length.  I  shall  merely  advert  to  some  of  the  arguments  by  which 
the  unity  and  sameness  of  the  book  are  established. 

(1)  There  is  an  evident  plan  in  the  arrangement  of  the  book.     The 
historical  part  is  orderly  and  chronologically  arranged.     The  different 
kings  brought  to  view  succeed  each  other  in  the  order  of  time,  as  well  as 
of  the  occurrences  under  their  reign.     In  the  prophetical  part,  the  same 
arrangement  is  regularly  observed.     The  book  as  a  whole  has  an  appro 
priate  introduction  in  chap,  i.,  and  an  appropriate  ending  in  chap.  xii. 

(2)  There  is,  as  has  already  been  said  above,  a  resemblance  of  char 
acter  through  and  through,  so  exact  as  can  scarcely  be  found  in  any 
other  book  in  all  the  Bible.     Even  in  passing  from  Hebrew  to  Chaldee, 
and  vice  versa,  the  difference  in  style  and  character  cannot  be  at  all  dis 
cerned.      The  difference  is  simply  linguistic,  and  nothing  more.     It 
seems  to  me  impossible  for  any  one  at  all  skilled  in  discerning  the  char 
acteristics  of  writing,  to  read  the  book  through  attentively  in  the  original, 
without  an  overwhelming  conviction  that  the  whole  proceeded  from  one 
pen  and  one  mind. 

(3)  The  several  portions  of  the  book,  both  in  history  and  prophecy, 
stand  related  to  each,  and  are  similar,  in  a  variety  of  respects. 

E.  g.  2:  47  and  3:  29.*  — 4:  1—3  and  4:  37.  6:  29.  — 3:  30  and  6: 
28,  and  generally  chaps,  iii.  and  vi.  —  Comp.  the  latter  part  of  ii.  with 
corresponding  parts  of  vii.  viii.  So  8:  26  seq.  with  12:  4,  9.  —  9:  3  with 
10:  2,  3.  — 8:  16  with  9:  21.  — 8:  18  with  10:  9.  — Compare,  moreover, 
2:  49  with  3:  12.  — 5:  1,  2  with  5:  23.  — 5:  11  with  2:  48.  —  5:  18  seq. 
with  4:  22  seq.  —  6:  1—3  with  6:  28,  — 8:  1  seq.  with  7:  1  seq.  — 9:  21 
with  8:  15  seq.  —  10:  12  with  9:  23. 

Besides  these  affinities,  there  are  others  still  more  decisive,  because 
they  have  respect  to  peculiarities  of  phraseology  which  belong  only  to 
this  book. 

Compare  the  comminations  in  2:  5.  3:  29.  —  Compare  also  the  idio 
matic  phrases,  issn  -nm  in  2:  28.  4:  2,  7,  10.  7:  1,  7.  — Vjnn  &np,  3:  4. 
5:  7.  4:  14—  wa  lit,  5:  6,  9.  7:  28,  comp.  10:  8.  —  ^  WE  W,  3:  8. 
6:  24.  —  fi&na^rib'nsn ,  4:  16.  5:  6,  10.  7:  28.  —  ^arabi  'anax  X*EB?, 
3:  4,  7.  4:  1.  5:  19.  6:  25.  —  Also  the  designation  of  time  by  a  peculiar 
use  of  D^ ,  8:  27.  10:3.  —  isiab,  8:  19.  11:  27,  35.  —  The  peculiar 

*  The  references  are  conformed  to  the  division  of  chapter  and  verse  in  our  Eng 
lish  Bible,  for  the  sake  of  more  easy  comparison.  The  Hebrew  can  be  easily  found, 
in  cases  where  it  differs  in  its  notation. 


400  §  6.  GENUINENESS  AND  AUTHENTICITY. 


:  18.  10:  9.  —  rato  -ppr,  9:  27.  11:  31.  12:  11.  —  is*  for  Pales 
tine,  8:  9.  11:  16,  41.  Compare  also  the  various  cases  in  which  Daniel 
is  mentioned  and  commended,  2:  26.  4:  8,  18.  10:  1.  5:  11.  9:  23.  10: 
11,  19.  The  repetition  of  more  or  less  of  passages  in  nearly  the  same 
words,  may  be  seen  in  3:  7,  10,  15.  4:  10  seq.  and  20  seq.  al. 

These  are  by  no  means  all  the  resemblances  and  affinities  of  different 
parts  of  the  book.  Nothing  can  be  more  palpable,  than  that  these  dif 
ferent  parts,  both  historical  and  prophetic,  come  from  the  same  source, 
and  that  in  the  whole  there  is  a  unity  and  completeness  of  design.  There 
is  riot  a  structure  on  the  whole  area  of  sacred  ground,  in  which  the  parts 
are  more  homogeneous,  better  fitted  to  each  other,  or  more  firmly  dove 
tailed  together,  than  the  one  before  us.  That  Bertholdt  should  imagine 
the  book  to  comprise  nine  or  even  seven  authors,  would  be  unaccountable 
in  any  ordinary  case  —  but  still  it  is  nothing  very  strange  for  him. 

§  6.   Genuineness  and  Authenticity  of  the  Book. 

I  join  these  two  categories  together,  because  it  is  difficult  to  treat  of 
them  separately,  without  making  many  repetitions.  If  the  book  be 
genuine,  i.  e.  if  it  be  the  production  of  Daniel  the  prophet,  then  is  it  of 
course  authentic,  and  has  a  fair  claim  to  a  place  in  the  Canon. 

The  objections  made  to  the  genuineness  of  the  book  are  numerous,  and 
are  urged  with  great  confidence  and  earnestness,  by  nearly  the  whole 
corps  of  neological  critics.  They  have  even  shaken  the  faith  of  some, 
who  receive  most  of  the  other  sacred  books  as  authentic.  Indeed  it  has 
of  late  been  confidently  and  somewhat  frequently  declared,  tliatfuit  Ilium 
will  soon  be  written  on  this  supposed  monument  of  ancient  times  ;  and 
that  ere  long  it  will  come  to  a  state  of  desuetude  as  complete  as  that  of 
the  devoted  Trojan  city,  while  its  pretended  remains  will  attract  far  less 
of  the  curiosity  of  scholars.  Or,  (to  use  another  of  the  decent  comparisons 
that  have  lately  been  made),  it  will  take  its  place,  with  general  acqui 
escence,  along  with  Amadis  de  Gaul  and  Jack  the  Giant-killer. 

We  shall  inquire,  by  and  by,  whether  there  is  any  good  reason  for 
such  sweeping  condemnation  .and  excision  as  this.  But  I  deem  it  pre 
ferable  first  to  bring  under  notice,  the  reasons  which  may  be  urged  in 
favor  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book.  It  is  incumbent  on  those  who 
admit  the  valid  claims  of  the  book  to  a  place  in  the  canon,  to  produce 
the  grounds  or  reasons  of  their  belief.  The  affirmative  of  a  controverted 
claim,  specially  where  the  claim  has  long  been  made,  naturally  demands 
our  first  attention,  when  we  are  about  to  examine  its  validity. 

It  is  not  my  design  to  enter  into  and  dwell  upon  all  the  minutiae  of 


§  6    GENUINENESS  AND  AUTHENTICITY.  401 

this  subject.  It  is  enough,  when  points  are  established,  which  must 
settle,  or  ought  to  settle,  the  controversy.  In  what  I  do  say,  my  design 
moreover  is  to  be  as  brief  as  perspicuity  and  the  nature  of  the  case  will 
allow. 

Several  writers  divide  the  proofs  of  the  genuineness  of  Daniel,  into 
those  which  are  external,  i.  e.  arise  from  the  testimony  of  others ;  and 
those  which  are  internal,  i.  e.  arise  from  a  view  of  the  contents.  I  do 
not  deem  it  of  any  importance  to  confine  ourselves  within  these  technical 
limits  of  order ;  for  I  regard  it  as  more  convincing  and  satisfactory,  to 
produce  the  arguments  in  some  natural  consecution,  and  so  that  their 
relation  to  each  other  may  be  easily  apprehended. 

As  an  argument,  then,  in  favor  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  I  would 
mention,  (1)  The  testimony  of  the  writer  himself  to  this  fact.  In  7:  28. 
8:  2,  15,  27.  9:  2.  10:  1.  12:  5,  the  writer  speaks  of  himself  as  I  Daniel, 
i.  e.  the  same  Daniel  whose  history  is  given  in  chap.  i.  I  do  not  indeed 
regard  this  as  conclusive  evidence ;  for  the  forger  of  a  book  may  insert 
the  name  of  another  person  as  the  author,  and  be  constant  in  maintaining 
that  he  is  so.  But  when  we  find  the  name  of  Thucydides,  or  of  any 
Greek  or  Roman  classic  author,  apparently  inserted  by  himself  as  the 
writer  of  this  book  or  of  that,  we  regard  it  at  least  as  prima  facie  evidence 
of  the  fact,  and  credible  until  something  shall  be  produced  which  contra 
dicts  it.  This  must  be  either  what  the  book  itself  contains,  which  will 
show  that  it  belongs  to  another  age  or  country ;  or  else  it  must  be  con 
tradicted  by  other  credible  witnesses,  who  lived  at  the  alleged  author's 
time,  or  soon  after ;  or  finally  it  must  bear  evident  marks  of  designed 
fraud,  or  at  least  of  designed  fiction.  Nothing  of  testimony  against  the 
genuineness  of  the  book,  by  competent  and  cognizant  witnesses  of  ancient 
times,  has  been  or  can  be  produced.  From  the  tkne  in  which  it  made 
its  appearance  down  to  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century,  among 
Jews  and  Christians,  the  book  held  an  uniform  and  undisputed  rank  as 
a  genuine  book.  No  one,  except  men  like  Porphyry,  who  rejected  all 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Test.,  rose  up  to  call  it  in  ques 
tion.  That  it  bears  evident  marks  of  fraud  or  of  fiction,  would  seem  to  be 
sufficiently  contradicted  by  the  simple  fact  of  universal  reception  for  at  least 
2000  years.  Evident  —  to  whom  ?  Not  to  men  who  for  more  than  this  long 
period  were  its  serious  and  enlightened  readers  —  men  too  of  all  classes  and 
conditions,  hostile  to  each  other  on  many  speculative  points  of  religion,  but 
all  agreed  in  conceding  to  the  book  before  us  the  place  that  it  occupies. 

It  is  vain  to  say,  that  the  Talmudists  who  assigned  it  a  place  among 
the  KethuUm,  meant  to  degrade  it  thereby,  whatever  other  reasons  they 
might  have  had  for  this  proceeding.  The  Talmud  itself  says  of  Daniel : 

34* 


402  §6.    GENUINENESS  AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

"  If  all  the  wise  men  of  the  Gentiles  were  put  in  one  scale,  and  Daniel 
in  the  other,  he  would  outweigh  them  all ;  see  in  Carpzov.  Introd.,  p.  228, 
230.  Josephus,  as  we  have  seen  above  (p.  380),  ranks  Daniel  above  all 
the  prophets.  Jerome  says,  that  u  none  of  the  prophets  have  spoken  so 
plainly  respecting  Christ ;"  Pref.  in  Dan.  Augustine  feays,  that  "  no  one 
in  the  O.  Test,  has  written  so  expressly  concerning  the  rewards  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  Even  Lengerke  does  not  venture  to  \mputefraud 
to  it,  but  charges  it  with  romantic  fiction.  He  and  others  charge  it, 
moreover,  with  inconsistencies,  with  parachronisms,  with  lack  of  histori 
cal  knowledge,  and  with  various  whimsies  and  excesses  which  render  it 
suspicious.  But  what  if  these  last  charges,  when  examined,  turn  out  to  be 
more  subjective  than  objective  ?  If  so,  (and  of  this,  after  having  traversed 
the  ground,  I  cannot  doubt),  then  there  can  be  no  valid  objection  to  ad 
mitting  the  author's  testimony  to  his  own  authorship. 

Why  do  we  admit  the  testimony  of  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Mala- 
chi,  and  indeed  of  all  the  prophets,  to  their  own  authorship,  and  reject 
that  of  Daniel  ?  Why  do  we  give  credence  to  like  testimony  of  Thu- 
cydides,  and  other  Greek  and  also  Roman  writers  ?  Prima  facie  then, 
the  repeated  declarations  of  Daniel  respecting  his  authorship,  are  evi 
dence  in  favor  of  it  —  evidence  of  importance,  unless  it  can  be  rebutted. 

The  fact  that  he  so  often  exchanges  the  first  person  for  the  third,  or 
vice  versa,  is  no  evidence  against  this,  for  such  is  the  custom  of  all  the 
prophets.  It  is  the  frequency  with  which  he  introduces  himself,  that 
Lengerke  charges  with  being  a  suspicious  circumstance.  '  None  but  a 
supposititious  writer,'  he  says,  l  would  be  so  anxious  to  reassert  so  often 
his  claims  and  the  credibility  of  his  book.'  And  yet  if  we  look  into  Je 
remiah,  Ezekiel,  and  several  other  prophets,  we  find  the  authors  of  the 
book  brought  to  our  notice  at  every  new  revelation.  —  What  could  be 
more  natural  ?  Why  should  Daniel  only  be  required  to  depart  from  this 
common  usage  ? 

(2)  The  sacred  writers  of  the  0.  Test,  and  the  New,  and  also  the  Sa 
viour  himself,  have  testified  to  the  personage  and  to  the  book  of  Daniel, 
in  such  a  way  as  fully  to  establish  the  claims  made  by  that  book  in  be 
half  of  Daniel  as  a  true  prophet. 

We  begin  with  Ezekiel,  a  contemporary  of  Daniel,  and  like  him  living 
in  exile.  When  threatening  the  Jews,  still  remaining  in  Palestine  just 
before  the  final  captivity,  with  thorough  excision  because  of  their  sins,  he 
says,  as  the  messenger  of  God  authorized  to  repeat  his  message  to  them : 
"Though  these  three  men,  Noah,  Daniel,  and  Job,  were  in  it  [Jerusalem], 
they  should  deliver  but  their  own  souls  [lives]  by  their  righteousness ;" 
14: 14.  This  is  twice  more  repeated  in  vs.  18,  20.  Again  in  speak- 


§  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  403 

ing  of  the  prince  of  Tyre  (28:  3),  he  says,  in  the  way  of  chastising  his 
insolence  and  self  conceit :  "  Behold,  thou  art  wiser  than  Daniel ;  there 
is  no  secret  that  they  can  hide  from  thee  !"  The  cutting  irony  of  this  is 
quite  plain.  Equally  plain  is  the  high  elevation  given  to  the  wisdom  of 
Daniel.  It  is  as  much  as  saying  to  the  prince  :  '  Thou  comparest  thyself 
with  one  of  the  wisest  of  men,  and  thinkest  thyself  his  equal.'  The  man 
ner  in  which  this  is  said,  shows  that  the  prophet  appeals  to  the  common 
sentiment,  respecting  Daniel,  of  the  Jews  of  his  time  whom  he  addressed. 
And  the  like  may  be  said  of  the  preceding  testimony.  Daniel  is  classed, 
as  a  preeminent  example  of  a  just  and  holy  life,  with  Noah  and  Job. 
What  can  render  any  testimony  more  impressive,  in  respect  to  the  char 
acter  of  Daniel  ? 

In  vain  are  we  told,  that  there  are  other  Daniels  in  the  sacred  volume ;' 
for  they  are  at  least  nothing  to  our  purpose.  One  of  them  was  a  son  of 
David,  1  Chron.  3:  1,  of  whom  nothing  but  his  name  is  known.  The 
other  was  a  son  of  Ithamar,  one  of  the  leaders  of  a  company,  who  went  up 
to  Jerusalem  with  Ezra,  some  seventy  years  after  Daniel's  death,  and 
more  than  that  after  the  death  of  Ezekiel,  Ezra  8:  2.  Comp.  Neh.  10:  6. 
Of  course  he  is  out  of  question.  Besides  these  we  know  of  no  Daniel 
but  the  one  before  us.  It  is  no  objection  of  any  weight,  in  the  question  as 
to  his  person,  that  he  was  young  when  Ezekiel  wrote  the  passages  cited. 
The  first  passages  were  written  about  B.  C.  594,  and  the  second  pas 
sage  about  588.  When  the  first  were  written,  Daniel  must  have  been 
some  twenty-five  or  twenty-seven  years  of  age,  if  we  allow  that  he  was 
some  twelve  to  fourteen  when  he  was  carried  into  exile  ;  (^  he  is  called 
in  Dan.  1:  4).  When  the  second  was  written,  he  was  some  thirty-one  to 
thirty-three  years  old.  He  was  indeed  very  young  to  acquire  such  a  repu 
tation  for  holiness  and  wisdom.  But  the  solution  of  the  problem  is  made 
by  the  history  of  him  in  ch.  i.  ii.  of  his  book.  The  testimony  of  Ezekiel 
is  in  strict  conformity  with  all  that  history,  and  is  indeed  a  notable  com 
ment  on  it  and  voucher  for  it.  Considering  the  publicity  and  conspicuous 
nature  of  his  station  as  prime  minister  of  the  Babylonish  court,  even  when 
he  could  have  been  but  some  eighteen  or  nineteen  years  of  age,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  his  fame  had  spread  far  and  wide,  at  the  time  when 
Ezekiel  bore  testimony  concerning  him. 

In  vain  are  we  told  by  Bleek  and  others,  that  the  Daniel  of  Ezekiel 
must  have  been  a  more  ancient  and  probably  a  mythical  person.  Eze 
kiel  classes  him  with  scriptural  personages,  real  ones,  not  with  mythical 
abstractions.  He  would  not  have  been  intelligible  to  his  readers,  if  he  did 
not.  Such  then  being  the  case,  we  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  when 
Ezekiel  wrote,  the  condition  and  character  of  Daniel  was  altogether  such 
as  his  book  asserts  or  describes  it  to  be.  It  is  indeed  a  signal  testimony, 


404  §  6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

and  such  an  one  as  is  scarcely  given  elsewhere  in  any  part  of  the  Scrip 
tures,  by  one  prophet  in  respect  to  another. 

Thus  much  then  for  Daniel's  person  and  character.  And  thus  much, 
be  it  remembered,  from  the  pen  of  a  distinguished  prophet  of  God,  con 
temporary  with  Daniel,  and  a  companion  in  exile.  Let  us  now  see  what 
is  the  testimony  of  the  N.  Test,  in  relation  to  the  same  personage. 

First  of  all,  then,  we  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  Christ  himself,  in 
Matt.  24:  15,  "When  ye,  therefore,  shall  see  the  abomination  of  desola 
tion,  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet,  stand  in  the  holy  place,  (whoso 
readeth  let  him  understand),  then  let  them  that  are  in  Judea  flee,  etc." 
The  same  is  repeated  in  Mark  13:  14  ;  excepting  that  some  critical  edi 
tions  now  omit  one  clause  there,  viz.  "  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet". 
But  this  omission  alters  not  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  Saviour  quotes 
written  words  from  Daniel,  and  refers  the  reader  (6  dvayii>(»GX8)v)  to  them 
for  reflection  upon  them.  In  these  passages  then,  or  rather  in  the  Sa 
viour's  discourse,  he  bears  explicit  testimony  to  two  things  ;  first,  that 
Daniel  was  a  prophet  ;  and  secondly,  that  his  words,  when  attentively 
perused  and  understood,  give  warning  to  his  disciples  to  escape  by  flight 
from  the  then  impending  fate  of  Jerusalem.  Now  as  we  must  concede 
that  Jesus  spoke  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness,  yea  that  he  spake 
them  as  never  man  did  speak,  what  can  we  make  of  such  testimony,  ex 
cept  that  he  believed,  as  well  as  the  disciples  whom  he  addressed,  that 
Daniel  was  a  true  prophet,  and  his  book  worthy  of  all  honor  and  credit  ? 
To  suppose  the  Saviour  of  the  world  to  make  such  an  appeal  to  a  book 
that  was  the  comparatively  recent  work  of  an  impostor  —  or  at  least  a 
forger  of  romances  —  although  the  book  had  been  lucky  enough  to  gain 
a  place  in  the  sacred  canon,  is  to  suppose  Christ  himself  to  be  either  ig 
norant  of  the  state  of  facts,  or  else  willing  to  foster  the  false  regard  which 
was  paid  to  the  book  by  the  Jews.  My  views  of  that  sacred,  that  divine 
teacher,  will  not  permit  me  to  believe  either.  Of  course  I  must,  on  his 
authority,  regard  the  book  as  sacred.* 


*  I  have  assumed  in  my  remarks  the  position,  that  the  parenthentic  6 
anuv  VQE'LTU  are  the  words  of  Christ,  and  not  a  suggestion  of  the  evangelist.  I  know 
not  where  to  find  warnings  of  this  nature,  inserted  by  the  evangelists  themselves,  on 
their  own  authority,  in  the  discourses  of  Christ.  But  with  the  Saviour  such  warnings 
are  frequent.  E.  g.  "  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear,"  and  the  like.  In  the 
case  before  us,  Jesus  cites  the  words  of  Daniel,  and  warns  his  hearers  to  give  to  them 
deliberate  consideration,  vodru,  revolve  them  in  mind.  The  labored  attempt  of  Wiese- 
ler  (Ausleg.  u.  Krit.  d.  Apoc.  Lit.  s.  173  ff.)  to  show  that  the  parenthesis  belongs,  in 
both  Matthew  and  Mark,  to  these  evangelists  themselves,  has  entirely  failed  to  con 
vince  me.  The  design  of  such  an  effort  is,  to  remove  the  impression  that  Christ  has 
himself  referred  to  Daniel  as  conclusive  authority.  The  burden  of  such  an  allegation 
some  recent  critics  would  rather  lay  upon  the  apostles,  whom  they  regard  as  un 
doubtedly  liable  to  mistaken  apprehensions. 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY.  405 

That  at  that  period  the  book  was  in  the  Jewish  canon,  no  one  worthy 
of  any  regard  will  deny.  That  it  was  what  it  now  is,  through  and  through, 
is  quite  certain.  Josephus  follows  "/.ara  noda  the  narrative  part,  in  An- 
tiq.  X.  He  also  refers  to  the  contents  of  the  prophecies.  And  so,  as 
we  shall  soon  see,  do  the  writers  of  the  N.  Test.  But  what  we  have 
already  seen,  viz.  that  Christ  himself  has  expressly  sanctioned  this  book, 
and  named  the  author  as  Daniel  the  prophet,  settles  the  great  question 
with  every  believing  mind,  both  as  to  its  genuineness  and  its  authenticity. 
Still,  this  is  not  all  the  testimony  of  Christ.  He  calls  himself  very  often 
the  Son  of  Man  ;  an  appellation  which  would  seem,  at  first  view,  to  de 
tract  from  his  dignity,  and  place  him  on  a  level  with  men  at  large,  or  at 
most  on  a  level  with  those  prophets  (e.  g.  Ezekiel)  who  are  often  ad 
dressed  in  this  way.  But  John  5:  27  solves  the  mystery.  There  Christ 
represents  himself  to  be  the  appointed  judge  of  the  world  and  the  giver 
of  life  both  spiritual  and  natural,  because  he  is  the  Son  of  Man.  The  allu 
sion  is  so  palpable  to  Dan.  7:  13,  14,  that  none  can  well  mistake  it. 
There  we  find  ascribed  to  the  Son  of  Man  supremacy  and  power,  like 
that  which  is  asserted  in  the  Gospels.  It  is  because  he  is  the  Son  of  Man 
in  the  sense  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  that  he  claims  the  prerogatives  in 
question.  Again,  if  we  compare  Dan.  7: 13, 14,  and  26,  27  with  Matt.  10: 
23.  16:  27,  28.  19:  28.  24:  30.  26:  64,  the  conclusion  seems  inevitable 
that  Christ  has  applied  the  words  of  Daniel  to  the  description  of  his  own 
dominion  and  reign  —  so  carefully  applied  them  as  to  follow,  as  often  as 
practicable,  the  very  diction  of  the  prophet.  Once  more  ;  in  John  5:  28, 
29,  Christ  has  employed  the  words  of  Dan.  12:  2,  which  contains  the 
most  peculiar  statement  that  exists  in  the  O.  Test.,  respecting  the  doc 
trine  of  a  general  resurrection. 

Thus  much  for  the  testimony  of  him  who  was  the  Truth  and  the  Light 
of  the  world.  Let  us  now  see  what  some  of  his  leading  apostles  and  dis 
ciples  have  said. 

(a)  In  Heb.  11:  33,  34,  "stopped  the  mouths  of  lions  ;  quenched  the 
violence  of  fire,  escaped  the  edge  of  the  sword,"  seem  very  plainly  to  re 
fer  to  the  history  in  Dan.  vi.  iii.  and  ii.  Daniel's  escape  in  tli£  den  of  li 
ons  ;  the  deliverance  of  his  three  companions  from  the  power  of  the  fiery 
furnace ;  and  the  liberation  of  him  and  them,  from  the  impending  decree 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  destroy  all  the  wise  men ;  must  have  been  dis 
tinctly  before  the  mind  of  the  writer,  (b)  Paul's  second  epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians  (ch.  ii.  iii.)  seems  to  contain  an  evident  reference  to  Dan 
iel's  description  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ;  comp.  2  Thess.  2:  4  with 
Dan.  1 1:  36.  Also  2  Thess.  2: 8  with  Dan.  11: 45.  8:  25.  I  cannot  think 
however,  as  Hengstenberg  does,  that  Daniel  and  Paul  both  refer  to  the  same 


406  §  6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

individual.  I  regard  the  apostle,  as  describing  such  a  character  as  he 
brings  to  view,  under  the  new  dispensation,  in  the  same  way  as  Daniel 
has  described  a  similar  one  under  the  ancient  dispensation.  The  in 
stance  before  us,  however,  is  not  produced  as  one  of  a  character  alto 
gether  decisive,  but  only  as  one  which  shows  the  estimate  which  Paul 
put  upon  the  book  of  Daniel,  by  employing  language  taken  from  him 
in  respect  to  a  very  grave  matter.  More  decisive  seems  to  be  1  Cor. 
6:  2,  "  Know  ye  not  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the  world  ;"  when  com 
pared  with  Daniel  7:  27,  "  And  the  kingdom  and  dominion,  and  the 
greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven,  shall  be  given  to 
the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  most  High."  The  manner  of  the 
apostle's  inquiry  implies,  that  his  readers  are  already  in  possession  of 
the  knowledge  in  question.  Where  else  could  they  obtain  it  so  directly 
and  easily  as  in  the  passage  of  Daniel  just  cited  ? 

(c)  In  Acts  7:  56,  it  is  related  of  Stephen  that  he  said:  "I  see  the 
heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of  Man  standing  on  the  right  hand  of 
God."  How  exactly  this  tallies  -with  Daniel  7:  13',  every  reader  may 
easily  see.  That  Stephen  had  his  mind  on  that  passage  in  Daniel,  and 
has  employed  its  peculiar  language,  cannot  well  be  doubted.  No  where 
else  does  any  disciple  ever  speak  of  the  Saviour  as  the  Son  of  Man. 
It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  Stephen  would,  in  this  case,  have 
departed  from  universal  usage,  unless  his  mind  had  been  distinctly  on 
the  passage  in  Daniel,  which  he  has  quoted  as  to  its  most  distinctive 
particular. 

^  (d)  Finally,  if  we  take  up  the  Apocalypse,  and  read  it  through 
with  care,  we  shall  find  that  the  general  arrangement  of  this  work, 
and  a  multitude  of  passages  in  it,  are  altogether  after  the  manner  of 
Daniel.  It  begins  with  a  historical  part,  chap,  i — iii.,  and  the  rest  is 
prophecy.  The  kind  of  imagery  employed,  the  symbols  chosen  for 
representation,  the  intervention  of  angel-assistants  and  angel-interpre 
ters,  and  even  the  designation  of  times,  are  all  after  the  model  of  Daniel 
throughout,  although  far  from  a  plagiarist's  imitation.  It  is  no  small 
testimony  to  the  estimation  in  which  Daniel  was  held,  that  John  has 
thus  preferred  in  general  his  manner  of  communication  to  all  others. 
To  cite  instances,  in  a  case  so  palpable  and  so  generally  if  not  univer 
sally  acknowledged,  would  be  useless  on  the  present  occasion.  The  two 
books  stand  side  by  side,  the  one  describing  the  approaching  end  of  the 
.4wte-Messianic  dispensation,  the  other  describing  the  sequel  and  the 
end  of  the  Messianic  one. 

In  review  of  the  facts   presented  under  our  present  category,  let  me 
ask :  What  prophet  in  all  the  Old  Test,  is  more  expressly,  or  (taking 


UNIVERSIT 

o  jr 
^   'T? 

§  6.   GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

the  New  Test,  all  in  all)  more  amply  recognized  and  authenticated, 
than  Daniel  ?  Isaiah  is  indeed  very  frequently  quoted ;  but,  if  the 
Apocalypse  be  taken  into  the  account,  he  does  not  so  often  appear, in 
the  New  Test,  as  Daniel  does.  No  other  prophet,  at  all  events,  can  • 
make  claim  to  so  much  reference  as  Daniel.  But  how,  now,  and  why 
is  this  ?  If  we  are  to  believe  the  mass  of  recent  critics,  the  book  of 
Daniel  is  a  supposititious  work  —  a  romance  forged  during  the  persecu 
tion  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  —  how  then  came  Christ  to  appeal  to,  and  to 
treat,  Daniel  as  a  true  prophet  ?  And  how  came  those  disciples,  to  whom 
he  had  promised  that  "  the  Holy  Ghost  should  teach  them  all  things, 
and  bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance"  (John  14:  26),  to  regard 
and  treat  one  who  was  an  impostor,  or  at  all  events  a  forger  and  a  roman 
cer,  as  a  prophet  of  God,  whose  work  was  worthy  of  all  confidence  and 
reverence  ? 

The  answer  to  these  and  the  like  questions  is,  that  *  a  miracle  is  an 
impossibility ;  that  if  Daniel  was  written  before  the  time  of  Antiochus, 
a  miraculous  inspiration  must  be  conceded,  and  therefore  it  could  not 
have  been  written  so  early  as  the  book  pretends ;  and  lastly,  that  the 
disciples  of  Christ  often  conformed  to  Jewish  notions  and  prejudices, 
and  were  not  conversant  with  critical  matters,  and  moreover  that  even 
Jesus  himself  sometimes  assumed  the  Jewish  views  without  contradic 
tion,  because  he  did  not  wish  to  excite  their  prejudices  by  opposition  to 
them.'  But  let  those  think  and  say  all  this  who  may  and  will,  it  is  per 
fectly  evident  that  when  these  positions  are  assumed,  all  confidence  in 
the  unvarying  truth  and  authority  of  the  New  Test,  is  gone,  and  can 
never  more  be  defended.  Even  this,  however,  would  be  of  small  ac 
count  in  the  eyes  of  such  men  as  Strauss,  and  Lengerke,  and  Knobel, 
and  many  others.  But  the  sincere  lover  of  gos{  el-truth  can  never  be 
led  to  regard  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  or  his  holy  apostles,  as  deceived  of 
in  regard  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  or  as  giving  currency  by  their  authority 
to  forgery  and  imposture.  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  prin 
ciple  assumed  in  regard  to  miracles,  in  order  to  show  that  the  book  of 
Daniel  is  a  late  and  supposititious  book,  would  show  with  equal  force, 
that  all  the  miracles  of  the  Saviour  and  of  his  Apostles  are  mere  fig 
ments  of  the  imagination,  and  that  the  books  which  describe  them  are 
the  mere  productions  of  fiction  and  of  superstition.  Well  may  the 
sober  believer  say:  Quod  probat  nimium,  probat  nihil. 

(3)  Various  other  works  of  antiquity  besides  the  sacred  volume,  bear 
testimony  more  or  less  directly  to  the  ancient  and  venerated  character 
of  the  book  of  Daniel. 

(a)  Josephus   (Antiqq.  xi.  8.  4.    seq.)  relates,  that   Alexander   the 


408  §  6.    GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

Great,  when  besieging  Tyre,  sent  to  the  Jews  for  aid ;  which  was  de 
clined  on  the  ground  of  the  fealty  of  the  Jews  to  Darius  the  Persian 
king.  The  Grecian  conqueror  was  highly  exasperated,  and  as  soon  as 
Tyre  was  taken,  marched  his  array  against  Jesusalem.  The  Jews  were 
in  the  utmost  consternation,  and  betook  themselves  to  prayers  and 
offerings  in  the  temple.  Josephus  states  (loc.  cit),  that  the  high  priest 
Jaddua  was  warned,  in  a  dream,  to  go  out  with  the  priests  in  their 
sacred  robes,  and  the  leading  civilians  in  white  garments,  and  meet  and 
propitiate  the  conqueror.  This  they  did,  when  Alexander  drew  near  to 
the  city  ;  and  he  was  appeased,  and  did  reverence  to  the  high  priest, 
and  repaired  to  the  temple,  and  offered  sacrifices  there.  When  ques 
tioned  by  Parmenio,  one  of  his  generals,  how  he,  who  made  all  other 
kings  and  princes  do  homage  to  him,  could  himself  do  this  to  the  Jewish 
high-priest,  his  reply  was,  that  it  was  not  to  the  man  that  he  did  rever 
ence,  but  to  the  God  whom  the  man  adored.  He  then  added,  as  Jose 
phus  tells  the  story,  that  he,  while  at  Dios  in  Macedonia,  had  seen  in 
a  dream  this  very  man  (the  high-priest),  who  told  him  to  go  forward 
in  his  Persian  expedition,  for  he  would  be  victorious.  In  the  temple, 
the  same  historian  tells  us,  the  passages  in  Daniel  (8:  3 — 7.  11:  2,  3) 
were  shown  to  Alexander,  i.  e.  interpreted  to  him,  which  predicted  his 
success.  In  the  sequel,  Alexander  gave  full  liberty  to  the  Jews  to 
follow  their  own  religion,  and  freed  them  from  taxes  during  the  Sab 
batical  year.  All  this  happened  in  332  B.  C. 

This  account  by  Josephus  has,  of  course,  been  attacked  and  called 
in  question  as  fabulous.  But  as  to  the  main  historical  facts,  they  are 
vouched  for  by  other  writers.  That  Alexander  was  personally  in 
Judea,  Pliny  testifies;  Hist.  Nat.  xii.  26.  That  Palestine  voluntarily 
surrendered  to  him,  is  testified  in  Arrian's  history  of  Alexander,  ii.  25. 
That  he  was  met  by  the  high-priest  and  his  brethren  dressed  in  tur 
bans,  is  testified  by  Justin  (xi.  10),  who  says:  "Obvios  cum  infulis 
multos  orientis  reges  habuit."  Hecataeus  Abderita,  a  historian  con 
temporary  with  Alexander,  testifies  that  there  were  Jews  in  Alexander's 
army  ;  (cited  in  Josephus  cont.  Apion.  ii.  4).  And  finally  the  Talmu- 
dists  often,  specially  in  Tract.  Taanith,  eulogize  the  liberality  of  Alex 
ander. 

What  now  if  we  allow,  (as  I  should  be  disposed  to  do),  that  tradi 
tion  had  added  something  to  the  report  of  Alexander's  invasion,  which 
will  not  bear  critical  scanning  ?  Does  this  prove  that  the  narration  has 
no  basis  in  matter  of  fact?  Surely  not.  What  would  become  of 
most  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  histories,  on  such  a  ground  ?  We  may, 
if  we  please,  reject  the  dreams  as  being  special  and  divine  monitions.  In- 


§  6.    GENUINENESS  AND   AUTHENTICITY.  409 

deed,  that  of  Alexander  seems  to  bear  evident  marks  of  cunning  forgery 
on  his  part.  That  of  the  high-priest  might  very  naturally  have  taken 
place,  in  his  agitated  state  of  mind.  It  seems  to  have  been  conformed, 
however,  to  the  dictates  of  prudential  policy ;  and  whether  he  really  had 
such  a  dream,  or  not,  it  was  an  easy  and  ready  expedient  to  induce  the 
Jews  to  follow  his  peace-making  counsel.  For  the  rest,  that  Alexander 
was  pacified  and  flattered  by  the  honors  paid  him,  there  can  be  no  room 
to  doubt.  That  such  passages  in  Daniel  as  those  above  referred  to  were 
shown  him,  in  order  to  secure  his  favor  and  protection,  is  perfectly  nat 
ural.  Hitzig  himself  declares,  that  "  if  indeed  the  book  existed  at  that 
time,  it  was  undoubtedly  shown  to  him;"  Heid.  Jahrb.  1832,  s.  135. 
k  But  why  the  if  ?  I  know  of  no  historical  testimony  against  its  exist 
ence  at  that  period.  All  the  objections  to  its  antiquity  are  founded  on 
the  a  priori  assumption,  that  prophecy  and  miracle  are  impossible.  No 
one  can  doubt  that  Josephus  fully  believed  in  its  existence  at  the  close 
of  the  Babylonish  exile.  No  man  in  the  Jewish  nation  had  a  better 
opportunity  than  he,  to  know  the  history  of  his  own  people.  He  was  of 
high  descent  —  a  priest  himself,  and  the  son  of  an  eminent  priest  on  the 
paternal  side,  and  of  the  royal  Hasmonaean  race  on  the  maternal,  being 
of  the  fourth  generation  from  the  Maccabaean  family.  If  we  can  suppose 
any  person  among  the  Jews  to  be  cognizant  of  their  history,  he  was  the 
most  probable  man.  That  he  has  honestly  chronicled  the  story  respect 
ing  Alexander,  there  can  be  no  good  reason  for  doubting.  That  he  has 
told  it  with  some  of  the  appendages,  which  tradition  and  a  love  of  the 
marvellous  had  affixed  to  it,  forms  no  serious  objection  to  the  credible 
and  probable  facts  contained  in  it.  Nor  can  I  see,  how  an  a  priori  as 
sumption  about  the  book  of  Daniel  can  be  made  to  discredit  it ;  unless 
we  assume  the  position,  that  whatever  may  contradict  a  favorite  theory 
of  our  own  philosophy,  must  be  regarded  as  false.  After  all,  the  ques 
tion  of  prediction,  i.  e.  of  miracles,  is  one  that  depends  on  credible  testi 
mony,  not  on  a  priori  assumption. 

Taking  the  ground,  then,  that  the  narration  of  Josephus  is  substantial 
ly  true,  it  follows  that  the  book  of  Daniel,  as  it  now  exists,  was  current 
among  the  Jews  as  a  sacred  book,  at  least  some  168 — 170  years  before 
the  time  when,  according  to  the  critics  of  the  skeptical  school,  the  book 
could  be  written.  If  so,  then  prediction  must  be  conceded. 

(b)  The  first  book  of  Maccabees  (2:  59,  60),  written  in  all  probability 
not  long  after  the  death  of  Simon  the  brother  of  Judas  Maccabaeus,  and 
during  the  reign  of  his  son  John  Hyrcanus  (i.  e.  about  125 — 130  B*  C.), 
represents  the  father  of  the  Maccabees,  the  venerable  priest  Mattathias, 
on  his  death  bed,  as  warning  his  friends  and  encouraging  them  by  ap- 

35 


410  §  6.     GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

peal  to  the  example  *  of  the  three  worthies  who  were  saved  from  the 
furnace  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  of  Daniel  who  was  rescued  from  the  den 
of  lions,'  (Dan.  iii.  vi.)  If  he  did  actually  make  such  an  appeal,  then  the 
position  of  the  doubting  critics  has  no  good  foundation.  It  is  necessary 
to  the  success  of  their  cause,  that  the  book  should  have  been  written,  at 
least  completed,  after  the  death  of  Antiochus.  Otherwise,  according  to 
their  views,  neither  the  time  nor  the  manner  of  that  death  could  have 
been  designated ;  for  both  of  these  are  specially  declared,  and  are  prom 
inent  on  the  face  of  the  record. 

How  now  is  this  conclusion,  which  the  advocates  of  its  antiquity 
make,  avoided?  Bleek  tells  us  (p.  183),  that  the  historian  of  a  later 
period  may  have  put  these  words  into  the  mouth  of  Mattathias,  although 
he  did  not  himself  employ  them.  We  cannot  disprove  this ;  but  we  may 
well  say,  that  unless  the  book  is  destitute  of  support  in  other  quarters, 
the  assertion  of  Bleek  is  not  entitled  to  much  credit.  At  all  events,  let 
V  the  book  have  originated  when  it  might,  it  was,  in  the  time  of  Hyrcanus 
when  1  Mace,  was  written,  regarded  as  sacred.  In  what  way  a  book 
not  written  by  a  prophet,  (for  1  Mace,  repeatedly  declares  that  prophets 
were  then  no  more),  could  obtain  a  place  in  the  Canon,  and  be  regard 
ed  as  a  prophetic  work,  during  the  period  between  the  death  of  Antiochus 
and  the  writing  of  the  Maccabaean  history,  is  for  those  to  explain  and  ' 
show,  who  assert  the  late  origin  of  that  book.  No  tolerable  solution  of 
this  very  difficult  problem  has  yet  been  offered. 

(c)  The  Sept.  Version  of  the  Pentateuch  is  the  oldest  part  of  the 
Greek  translation.  It  is  a  controverted  question,  when  this  version  was 
made.  But  after  all,  I  see  not  how  the  testimony  of  Aristobulus  and  of 
Hecataeus  Abderita  can  be  set  aside,  viz.  that  at  least  this  part  of  the 
Sept.  was  completed  during  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Lagus,  or  at  all  events 
of  his  son  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  i.  e.  some  315 — 295  B.  C.  Havernick 
(Einleit.  ins  A.  Test.  I.  §  70)  has  discussed  this  subject  in  an  able,  and 
(on  the  whole)  satisfactory  manner.  Now  in  the  Sept.  (Deut.  32:  8)  is 
a  passage,  which  seems  plainly  to  owe  its  origin  to  Daniel  10:  13,  20, 21. 
11:  1.  The  original  Hebrew  in  Deuteronomy  runs  thus:  "When  the 
most  High  divided  to  the  nations  their  inheritance  ...  he  set  the  bounds 
of  the  people  according  to  the  number  of  the  children  of  Israel."  This 
last  clause  the  Sept.  have  rendered :  Kara  aQi&ftbv  dyy&av  &eov.  Again, 
in  Isa.  30:  4,  the  prophet  in  speaking  of  the  king  of  Egypt,  says :  "  His 
princes  were  at  Zoan,  and  his  ambassadors  came  to  Hanes."  The  Sept. 
translates  thus :  6t0f9  Iv  Tdvet,  dQ%yyol  dyye'koi  novriQoi.  The  version 
of  Isaiah  was  doubtless  somewhat  later  than  that  of  the  Pentateuch,  but 
not  so  much  so  as  to  interfere  with  the  present  argument.  Here,  in  both 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  411 

of  these  passages,  there  seems  to  be  a  distinct  recognition  of  the  doctrine, 
that  nations  have  their  presiding  angels  ;  a  doctrine  taught  nowhere  else 
in  the  0.  Test.,  save  in  the  passages  of  Daniel  above  referred  to.  I  am 
aware  of  the  allegation,  that  the  Seventy  may  have  drawn  this  doctrine 
in  respect  to  presiding  national  angels,  from  the  Parsis  and  the  religion 
of  Zoroaster.  But  I  am  also  aware,  that  no  such  doctrine  can  be  shown 
to  have  existed  among  the  Parsis ;  as  Hengstenberg  and  Havernick 
have  indeed  sufficiently  shown.  Nor  is  this  a  very  probable  source  from 
which  the  Jews  would  deduce  their  religious  notions.  Much  more  easy 
and  natural  is  it  to  suppose,  that  the  Seventy  drew  from  the  book 
of  Daniel.  It  will  hardly  be  contended,  that  their  version  in  general 
originated  so  late  as  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  At  all  events  we  know 
that  the  composition  of  Jesus  Sirach  was  antecedent  to  the  reign  of  Ariti- 
ochus ;  and  here  (17:  17)  we  find  it  written  :  f£x#(77q)  s&vsi  xavtartpflf 
[#eoff]  rjyovusvov ;  which  looks  very  much  like  being  drawn  from  Daniel. 
The  possibility  of  some  other  origin  we  may  readily  acknowledge ;  but 
i\\Q  probability  of  such  an  one  cannot  well  be  made  out. 

If  any  one  of  the  instances  of  resemblance  now  produced  did  in  fact 
take  its  rise  from  Daniel,  then  is  the  theory  of  a  Maccabaean  or  post- 
Antiochian  origin  of  the  book  out  of  question.  It  must  have  existed 
earlier ;  and  if  so,  then  is  the  edifice  of  the  objectors  undermined.  They 
may  as  well  concede  the  book  to  the  true  Daniel,  as  to  any  one  between 
his  time  and  the  death  of  Epiphanes.  It  cannot  be  said,  that  the  facts 
in  question  do  not  seriously  embarrass  the  antagonists  of  the  book. 

(d)  The  Septuagint  version  of  Daniel,  however,  bears  evident  marks 
of  coming  from  the  hand  of  some  one  who  lived  during  the  Maccabaean 
period.  It  contains  several  explanatory  clauses,  which  appear  to  have 
been  occasioned  by  events  then  recent,  the  accurate  knowledge  of  which 
enabled  the  translator  to  make  his  historical  commentary.  E.  g.  in  11:  30, 
where  the  Heb.  has :  "  The  ships  of  Chittim  shall  come  against  him,  and 
he  shall  be  disheartened,"  the  Sept.  runs  thus :  ^ovai  'Pcopaiot,  xal 
QWGOVGLV  avTor,  i.  e.  the  jRomans  shall  come,  and  expel  him.  This  evi 
dently  refers  to  the  interference  of  the  Roman  embassy  with  Antiochus, 
when  he  was  ready  to  seize  upon  the  capital  of  Egypt;  for  he  was 
stopped  by  them  in  his  career,  and  to  his  great  chagrin  was  obliged  to 
quit  the  country.  Again,  in  Dan.  9:  26,  the  Hebrew  runs  thus:  "After 
sixty-two  weeks  an  anointed  one  shall  be  cut  off,"  while  the  Sept.  translates 
thus :  xca  pSTa.  sTira  xal  efidofiuptorwa  xai  s^xovra  dvo,  aTioara^GETai, 
ZQIGIMX,  i.  e.  after  seven  and  seventy  and  sixty-two  [years],  anointing 
shall  cease.  The  sum  of  these  numbers  =  139 ;  and  this,  no  doubt, 
means  the  139th  year  of  the  era  of  the  Selucidae,  which  began  312  B.  C. 


412  §  6.    GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

This  would  bring  the  period  for  the  anointing  to  fail  or  cease,  down  to 
173  B.  C. ;  and  it  was  at  this  period,  or  within  a  few  months  of  it,  that 
the  high  priest  Onias  III.  was  ejected  from  his  office  by  Antiochus,  and 
soon  after  murdered  by  his  lieutenant  in  Syria.  It  is  to  this  event, 
doubtless,  that  the  version  refers,  when  it  says :  a,7TOGia&r}(5r}Tai  XQiapa. 
Now  all  this  shows  a  minute  and  accurate  knowledge  of  those  times, 
which  renders  it  probable  that  the  writer  lived  at  that  period.  At  all 
events,  if  the  comparison  be  made  of  the  loose  and  erroneous  manner  of 
stating  facts  in  2  Mace,  (a  later  and  an  Alexandrian  composition),  one 
must  feel  that  the  translator  was  unusually  and  accurately  cognizant  of 
the  history  of  those  times.  But  if  his  version  was  then  made,  how  could 
it  be,  in  case  the  original  had  just  then  made  its  appearance,  that  such 
alterations  would  be  introduced,  and  such  comments  inserted  ?  We  may 
well  suppose  the  author  of  the  Hebrew  Daniel  to  be  then  living,  if  we 
hearken  to  Lengerke  and  others  of  like  views.  Would  or  could  a  trans 
lator  take  such  liberties  with  a  recent  composition  ?  I  do  not  say  that  it 
is  impossible ;  yet  I  may  venture  to  say  that  such  a  thing  seems  to  be 
quite  improbable.  But  if  we  suppose  Daniel  to  have  been  written  in 
the  sixth  century  B.  C.,  then  there  was  time  for  a  book,  so  obscure  in 
some  of  its  passages,  to  have  been  subjected  to  traditional  explications, 
and  to  efforts  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  it  more  intelligible. 

Beyond  all  this,  it  should  be  observed,  that  the  whole  Sept.  version  of 
Daniel  is  a  paraphrastic  one,  departing  so  often  and  so  widely  from  the 
original,  that  even  in  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  with  all  their  reve 
rence  for  the  Sept.  in  general,  this  book  was  thrown  aside,  and  the  version 
of  Theodotion,  more  literal  and  exact,  was  taken  in  the  room  of  it.  Even 
at  that  period,  the  Sept.  version  had  attached  to  it  several  apocryphal 
appendages,  e.  g.  the  Hymn  of  the  three  Martyrs  in  the  furnace,  the 
story  of  Susanna,  and  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon.  At  least  so  the  matter 
stands,  in  the  Sept.  of  the  Chisian  Codex  as  published  at  Rome.  All 
this  argues  an  age  for  the  book  of  Daniel  back  of  the  Maccabaean  period. 
Such  stories  and  legends  are  usually  attached  to  books  of  a  more  ancient 
period,  and  not  to  recent  productions.  That  so  many  of  them  came  into 
the  Sept.  version,  would  help  to  confirm  the  position,  that  the  book  of 
Daniel  is  older  than  recent  liberal  criticism  allows  it  to  be. 

Finally  the  writer  of  the  1  Mace.,  has  quoted  the  Sept.  version,  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt.  It  must  then  have  enjoyed  full  credit  in  his  time. 
But  could  a  book  written  after  the  death  of  Epiphanes  have  already 
been  translated,  and  this  translation  have  become  a  source  of  citation  and 
appeal,  unless  the  original  book  was  written  earlier  than  the  death  of 
that  tyrant  ?  Such  a  yiew  of  the  matter  is  at  least  quite  an  improbable 
one. 


§  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  413 

(e)  The  Sibylline  Oracles  bear  testimony  to  the  antiquity  of  the  book. 
That  portion  of  them  to  which  I  refer,  is  Lib.  III.  vs.  319  seq.     Bleek 
himself  has  shown,  that  this  book  in  all  probability  originated  from  an 
Alexandrine  Jew,  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.     But  it  exhibits  an 
evident  effort  to  imitate  the  book  of  Daniel,  even  transferring  some  of 
its  imagery  to  itself.     E.  g.  (in  loc.  cit),  we  find  Antiochus  described  as 
§i£ar  i'ai>  ye,  didovs  —  «x  dexa  Sq  xeQarodv  naQct.  di]  cpvrbv  aklo  yvrevGei 
— Wai  tore  drj  TiaQayvopsrov  xzQag  UQ&I,  comp.  Dan.  7:  7,  8.  8:  9,  10. 
11: 21.     This  is  so  plain,  that  Bleek  acknowledges  the  agreement  between 
the  two,  but  says  that  we  must  account  for  this,  by  the  supposition  that 
both  had  for  their  source  one  common  and  older  tradition.     But  where 
are  we  to  stop,  in  assumptions  of  such  a  nature  ?     It  would  be  easy,  on 
such  ground,  deducere  aliquid  ex  cdiquo.     If  the  matter  be  as  stated 
above,  it  follows  that  the  book  of  Daniel  is  older  than  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees ;  for  in  their  time  it  already  had  currency  as  a  prophetic  wri 
ting,  inasmuch  as  the  design  of  the  Sibyllist  is  to  show  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecy  by  Antiochus. 

(f)  The  book  of  Baruch  was  evidently  written  during  the  period  of 
the  Jewish  persecutions  by  the  Syrian  tyrant,  and  written  like  the  Mace., 
for  the  sake  of  consoling  the  Hebrews  under  their  distresses.     It  assumes 
the  attitude  of  assurance  that  the  tyrant  will  fall,  and  that  the  Jews  will 
regain  their  liberty  and  privileges.     It  seems  to  have  drawn  these  views 
from  the  book  of  Daniel ;  and  if  this  be  admitted,  it  follows  that  at  that 
time  the  book  of  Daniel  was  received  and  regarded  as  a  prophetic  writing. 

(g)  To  come  down  somewhat  lower ;  it  lies  upon  the  whole  face  of 
Josephus'  narration  of  matters  comprised  in  the  book  before  us  (in  An- 
tiq.  X.),  that  he  had  not  only  regarded  Daniel  as  a  prophet,  but  the 
greatest  of  all  the  prophets.     That  the  Jews  of  his  day  universally  cher 
ished  the  same  sentiment,  no  one  acquainted  with  their  history  will 
attempt  to  deny.     But  how  comes  it,  now,  that  such  productions  as  the 
Sibylline  Oracles,  the  book  of  Enoch,  and  the  like,  never  gained  any 
such  credit  among  the  Jews  as  did  the  book  of  Daniel.     If  the  Hebrews 
of  that  period  were  so  credulous  and  easily  deceived  about  books,  as  the 
newer  criticism  now  in  fashion  represents  them  to  have  been,  then  how 
comes  it  that  all  the  other  productions  of  a  like  nature,  i.  e.  designed  to 
resemble  it,  were  rejected  as  apocryphal  and  unworthy  of  a  place  in  the 
sacred  Canon  ? 

(4)  The  reception  of  Daniel  into  the  Jewish  Canon  bears  strong  testi 
mony  to  its  genuineness  and  authenticity. 

( a)  I  need  not  here  go  into  any  detail  of  argument,  to  show  that  the 
Heb.  Scriptures  were  the  same,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles, 

35* 


414  §  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

that  they  now  are.  This  is  conceded  even  by  those  who  attack  the  gen 
uineness  of  the  book  before  us.  Nor  is  there  any  necessity  here  of 
showing  at  length,  that  the  N.  Test,  writers  in  common  with  the  Jews, 
attributed  a  divine  origin  and  authority  to  the  0.  Test.  Paul  says 
(2  Tim.  3:  16),  that  "all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and 
is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness."  Peter  (2  Pet.  1:  21)  declares,  that  "prophecy  came  not 
in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man,  but  that  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  were  easy  to  quote  abundance  of 
passages  of  the  like  tenor,  not  only  from  the  N.  Test.,  but  from  the  Son 
of  Sirach,  Wisdom,  1  Mace.,  and  other  apocryphal  books,  written  before 
the  N.  Test,  as  well  as  from  Josephus,  Philo,  and  other  later  Jewish 
writers.  There  was  but  one  voice  in  all  antiquity,  among  both  Jews  and 
Christians,  in  relation  to  this  matter. 

This  of  itself  shows,  that  a  wide  difference  was  made  at  that  period, 
between  sacred  and  other  books.  But  by  what  criterion  were  the  two 
classes  distinguished  and  separated  ?  The  only  answer  that  can  be  given 
is,  by  that  of  inspiration,  i.  e.  of  inspiration  supposed  and  believed  to 
exist,  in  the  writers  of  the  respective  books.  But  what  was  the  evidence 
of  this  ?  What  led  the  ancients  to  give  credit  to  this  alleged  inspiration  ? 
The  answer  must  be,  that  they  gave  credit  in  any  particular  case,  because 
they  deemed  the  author  to  be  a  prophet,  either  by  virtue  of  a  regular 
prophetic  office,  or  by  being  endowed  with  some  of  the  highest  qualities 
which  belonged  to  a  regular  prophet.  The  Jews,  beyond  all  doubt, 
as  the  Talmud  shows  us  (Bava  Bathra,  fol.  13.  2),  attributed  Joshua, 
Judges,  Ruth,  1  and  2  Samuel,  to  Joshua  and  Samuel.  The  properly 
prophetic  books  testified  for  themselves ;  and  the  rest  were  distributed 
among  David,  Solomon,  Jeremiah,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah.  There  are, 
indeed,  some  strange  conceits  mixed  up  with  the  Talmudic  tradition. 
But  they  do  not  affect  the  point  in  question.  On  all  hands  it  is  and  must 
be  conceded,  that  however  and  whenever  the  book  of  Daniel  came  into 
the  canon,  it  must  have  gained  admittance  as  the  supposed  work  of  a 
real  personage  and  a  true  prophet. 

When  then  did  the  order  of  prophets  cease  ?  We  have  testimony  in 
4:  46  of  the  first  book  of  the  Maccabees,  (written  some  125—130  B.  C. 
and  very  near  the  time  when  neological  critics  suppose  the  book  of 
Daniel  to  have  been  written),  that  Judas  Maccabaeus  and  his  compan 
ions,  when  they  reconsecrated  the  temple,  after  the  defeat  of  the  Syrian 
army  and  just  before  the  death  of  Antiochus,  pulled  down  the  altar  and 
removed  the  stones  thereof  to  a  place  appropriate  for  keeping  them, 
u  until  a  jnrophet  should  come  who  would  give  directions  concerning 


§  6.   GENUINENESS  AND   AUTHENTICITY.  415 

them,"  i.  e.  should  order  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  be  disposed 
of.  This  transaction,  according  to  the  decision  of  liberal  criticism,  pre 
ceded  only  some  months  the  composition  of  the  book  of  Daniel.  At  that 
period,  then,  there  was  no  prophet  in  Israel  to  settle  such  a  question ; 
much  less  to  write  a  canonical  book.  Again,  in  1  Mace.  9:  27,  the  same 
writer  says  :  "  There  was  great  affliction  in  Israel,  such  as  never  occurred 
from  the  time  when  a  pvophet  was  no  more  seen ;"  which,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  reference,  implies  a  long  period  antecedent.  Once  more, 
in  14:  41,  the  same  author  says,  that  Simon  was  appointed  governor  and 
perpetual  high  priest,  "  until  there  should  arise  a  prophet  worthy  of 
credit"  (niGtov).  Of  course  there  was  no  such  prophet  at  that  period. 

Josephus  says  in  the  most  express  terms :  "  We  have  only  twenty-two 
books,  containing  the  history  of  every  age,  which  are  justly  accredited. 
.  .  .  From  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  until  our  present  period,  all  occur 
rences  have  been  written  down ;  but  they  are  not  regarded  as  entitled  to 
the  like  credit  with  those  which  precede  them,  because  there  was  no  infalli 
ble  (dxQifiij)  succession  of  prophets  ;"  Cont.  Ap.  I.  8.  All  Jewish  writ 
ings  so  far  as  we  know,  both  earlier  and  later,  consider  the  period  of 
Malachi  as  the  close  or  end  of  the  succession  of  the  prophets. 

Adopting  then  the  position,  that  the  Jews  never  admitted  any  book  to 
their  sacred  Canon,  which  they  did  not  believe  to  be  inspired,  and  to  have 
originated  from  a  prophet  or  a  prophetical  man  in  respect  to  gifts,  our 
first  inquiry  has  been,  whether  any  such  men  were  extant  at  the  Macca- 
baean  period.  We  have  the  direct  testimony  of  a  writer,  at  the  very  close 
of  that  period,  (and  a  writer  he  is,  moreover,  of  distinguished  candor  and 
fidelity,  and  by  general  consent  worthy  of  credit),  —  we  have  his  testi 
mony,  not  only  that  there  were  no  prophets,  at  that  time,  but  that 
for  a  long  time  there  had  been  none.  The  passage  1  Mace.  9:  27 
(already  quoted  above)  cannot  mean  less  than  this.  Besides  all  this, 
the  manner  in  which  Jesus  Sirach  speaks  of  the  ancient  prophets,  in  46: 
15.  48:  22,  shows  that  he  considered  the  TIIGTOL  ogaGEws  as  belonging  to 
the  days  of  yore.  Nor  is'there  a  syllable  of  history  to  contradict  this. 
Certainly  the  Jews  had  national  pride  enough,  to  maintain  the  existence 
of  prophets  and  the  continuance  of  inspiration  among  them  long  after  the 
death  of  Malachi,  if  there  existed  any  fair  or  even  tolerable  ground  for 
pretensions  of  this  sort.  The  loss  of  the  prophetic  order  was  considered 
by  them  as  a  severe  chastisement,  and  also  as  a  great  degradation. 
There  cannot  be,  then,  even  the  remotest  probability,  that  the  Jews 
would  have  given  up  such  a  claim,  if  it  had  been  possible  to  support  it. 

(b)  The  next  question  that  occurs  then  is :  How  came  the  book  of 
Daniel  to  be  inserted  in  the  canon,  if  it  were  composed,  as  the  Geologists 


416  §  6.   GENUINENESS  AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

assert,  during  the  Maccabaean  period,  or  rather,  during  that  part  of  it 
which  followed  the  death  of  Epiphanes  ?  Who  was  the  man  to  introduce 
a  book  unknown  and  unheard  of  before,  and  to  procure  a  place  for  it  in 
the  sacred  canon  ?  Not  any  prophet ;  for  such  an  one  there  was  not. 
How  then  were  the  priests  and  elders  and  magistracy  among  the  Jews 
persuaded  to  admit  it  ?  The  forger  of  the  book  must  have  been  a  con 
summate  manager  as  well  as  skilful  writer,  to  persuade  the  Sanhedrim  to 
such  a  measure ;  or  else  they  must  have  been  deplorably  ignorant  of  their 
national  usages  in  regard  to  Scripture,  or  so  superstitious  as  to  lay  hold 
greedily  of  every  book  which  made  claims  to  sanctity.  From  what  we 
know,  and  so  far  as  we  know,  of  the  men  of  that  period,  there  was  no 
such  dexterous  forger  in  existence  among  the  Jews ;  and  even  if  there 
were,  there  was  little  likelihood  of  his  success.  The  men  of  that  day  were 
far  enough  from  being  ignorant,  stupid,  or  indifferent.  There  was  among 
them  a  Gwaywyr}  y£>#^jua7£W,  whose  business  it  was  to  attend  to  holy 
things  ;  so  1  Mace.  7:12.  To  the  same  purpose  testifies  Sirach  (38:  24), 
who  lived  and  wrote  before  Antiochus'  reign,  i.  e.  about  180  B.  C. 
He  speaks  of  the  dbupu*  ^£apfiare'o>£  as  being  attained  only  by  leisurely 
study,  implying  that  there  was  such  an  order  of  men  who  were  devoted 
to  the  study  of  sacred  things.  Again,  in  39: 1,  he  speaks  of  the 
rsv$  as  "  seeking  after  the  wisdom  of  all  the  ancients  (ndvrwv 
and  diligently  employing  himself  with  the  study  of  the  prophecies"  (iv 
TTQoysTeiais).  Beyond  this,  we  are  brought  by  1  Mace,  to  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  Mattathias,  the  noble  priest  at  Modin,  who  indignantly 
refused  to  obey  the  mandate  of  Epiphanes  to  sacrifice  to  idols ;  and  also 
with  his  talented,  heroic,  and  excellent  sons,  Judas,  Jonathan,  and  Simon, 
who  regained  the  freedom  of  their  country.  All  these  chose  to  die, 
rather  than  yield  up  anything  belonging  to  their  religion.  Is  it  reason 
able,  now,  to  suppose  that  such  men  could  have  been  entrapped  and  de 
ceived,  by  a  forger  of  a  book  at  that  period,  claiming  indeed  to  be  much 
older,  but  never  having  before  been  heard  of?  And  with  all  the  rigorous 
attachment  of  such  men  to  their  ancient  Scriptures  and  customs,  so  rigo 
rous  that  it  exposes  them  now  to  the  accusation  of  superstition  and  severity, 
on  the  part  of  the  Neologists,  —  with  all  their  zeal  and  jealousy  for  the  hon 
or  of  their  religion  and  their  holy  books,  could  they  have  been  persuaded  by 
a  writer  of  their  own  time  to  add  to  their  sacred  canon  ?  How  obvious 
the  questions  they  would  ask,  viz.  If  this  book  be  as  old  as  the  time  of 
Daniel,  where  has  it  been  for  these  nearly  four  hundred  years  ?  How 
comes  it  to  pass,  that  a  book  of  such  high  import,  as  this  seems  to  be, 
and  so  honorable  to  our  nation,  should  have  lain  in  utter  neglect  and  for- 
getfulness  during  all  that  period  ?  And  to  these  questions,  what  possible 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  417 

answer  that  would  be  satisfactory,  could  be  given  by  the  forger  of  the 
book?  I  cannot  even  imagine  what  could  have  been  his  reply  —  I  mean 
what  reply  could  be  such  as  would  have  given  them  satisfaction  about  the 
age  and  authenticity  of  the  book.  They  all  knew,  of  course,  that  until 
the  forger  presented  this  book,  it  was,  and  had  for  time  immemorial  been, 
unknown. 

If  now  we  unite  all  these  considerations  in  one  general  view,  it  seems 
impossible  that  any  one  well  acquainted  with  Jewish  antiquity,  can  seri 
ously  maintain  the  probability  of  such  a  book  being  forged  and  forced  into 
the  Jewish  canon,  at  that  period.  I  should  as  soon  have  expected  that 
Judas  and  his  brethren  would  yield  to  the  demands  of  Antiochus,  in  rela 
tion  to  sacrificing  to  idols,  as  that  they  would  have  altered  the  canon, 
when  confessedly  no  prophet  was  extant,  and  for  a  long  time  there  had 
been  none.  What  says  Josephus,  himself  a  priest  of  a  distinguished  order, 
and  a  descendant  of  the  Maccabees  ?  In  Cont.  Ap.  I.  8  he  says  :  "  Al 
though  so  many  ages  have  passed  away,  [viz.  since  the  Scriptures  were 
written],  no  one  has  dared  to  add  to  them,  nor  to  take  anything  from  them, 
nor  to  make  alterations.  In  all  Jews  it  is  implanted,  even  from  their  birth, 
to  regard  them  as  being  the  instructions  of  God ;  and  to  abide  stead 
fastly  by  them ;  and  if  it  be  necessary,  to  die  gladly  for  them."  Such 
are  the  genuine  words  of  a  genuine  Jew,  one  of  the  most  learned  and  en 
lightened  of  all  Jews,  as  to  the  affairs  and  customs  of  his  nation.  Indeed, 
one  cannot  well  conceive  of  a  greater  improbability,  than  that  the  book 
of  Daniel  was  added  to  the  sacred  canon  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees. 

In  truth,  the  representations  of  the  Neologists  are  very  inconsistent  with 
themselves  and  contradictory,  in  regard  to  this  period.  As  often  as  con 
venience  dictates,  the  book  of  Daniel  is  assailed,  on  the  ground  that  it 
exhibits  rigorous  fastings  and  praying  and  obstinate  adherence  to  Jewish 
rites  and  opinions,  which  are  characteristic  only  of  such  a  period  as  that 
of  the  Mace.,  and  therefore  the  book  could  not  have  been  written  by  the 
enlightened  ancient  Daniel.  Yet  this  very  Maccabaean  age  of  severe 
and  superstitious  adherence  to  the  rites  and  usages  and  opinions  of  the 
fathers  and  elders,  is  the  very  one,  according  to  our  opponents,  which  not 
merely  forges  a  new  book,  under  a  distinguished  prophet's  name,  but 
gives  credit  without  any  hesitation  to  the  antiquity  and  authority  of  a 
book  pretending  to  be  sacred,  that  had  been  unknown  and  unnoticed, 
from  the  time  when  the  alleged  author  lived,  down  to  their  own  time,  i.  e. 
about  four  centuries.  Was  there  ever  such  a  strange  mixture  of  charac 
ter  as  this,  in  the  same  age  and  among  the  same  people  ?  They  are  all 
rigor  and  severity  and  superstitious  adherence  to  patristical  tradition,  on 
the  one  hand ;  and  on  the  other,  they  are  ready  to  welcome  with  open 


418  §6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

arms  the  imposture  of  a  forger,  who  would  fain  put  off  his  romantic  and 
fantastic  fictions,  for  the  work  of  an  ancient  and  holy  prophet !  In  my 
humble  opinion,  it  requires  more  real  credulity  to  believe  all  this,  than  to 
believe  that  the  book  is  ancient  and  genuine.  How  can  we  believe  that 
such  an  age  as  that  of  the  Maccabees,  which  produced  so  many  noble  pa 
triots,  such  excellent  statesmen,  such  enlightened  and  zealous  priests,  and 
withal  such  works  as  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach  and  the  first  book  of  the  Mac 
cabees,  not  to  name  other  productions  of  the  time  —  how  can  we  believe 
that  an  age,  so  zealous  for  the  word  of  God  and  the  honor  of  religion  as 
to  hold  fast  and  adhere  to  even  the  minutest  traditional  opinions  and 
usages,  should  commit  a  sacrilege  on  one  of  the  holiest  parts  of  the  sacred 
domain,  viz.  on  that  of  the  most  highly  revered  Scriptures  ?  If  it  is  not 
impossible,  it  is  utterly  improbable. 

We  are  often  told  by  the  advocates  of  the  Maccabaean  period,  that 
*  the  age  was  too  uncritical  and  undistinguishing,  and  indeed  too  ignorant, 
to  detect  the  imposture  in  regard  to  the  book  of  Daniel ;'  and  we  are 
now  and  then  assured,  by  some  of  the  bolder  spirits  among  these  advo 
cates,  that l  any  book  written  in  Hebrew,  and  on  a  religious  subject,  was 
of  course  added  to  the  canon,  if  the  writer  desired  it.  In  this  way,  the 
book  of  Daniel  gained  admittance  into  the  sacred  enclosure.'  —  But  such 
a  view  of  the  subject  is  encompassed  with  difficulties.  First  of  all, 
how  came  the  writer  of  the  book  before  us  to  hit  upon  the  plan  of  writing 
one  half  of  it  in  the  Chaldee  language  ?  Other  prophets  of  the  exile  pe 
riod,  viz.  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  all  wrote  in  Hebrew. 
Only  Ezra  exhibits  any  Chaldee  in  his  composition ;  and  here  the  occa 
sion  of  so  doing  was  the  transcription  of  Chaldee  documents.  But  Ezra 
is  history,  not  prophecy.  What  advantage,  then,  in  regard  to  the  recep 
tion  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  could  a  writer  of  a  late  period  anticipate,  from 
writing  in  Chaldee  ?  None.  Moreover,  the  Chaldee  of  the  Maccabaean 
period  was  very  different  from  that  in  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Ezra. 
Whence  then  did  he  get  his  skill  in  the  old  Hebrew- Chaldee  ?  There 
was  no  model  of  a  mixture  of  languages  among  the  prophetic  books  of  the 
0.  Test.  Why  then  should  he  choose  such  a  method  of  writing  ?  I  see 
no  good  answer  that  can  be  made  to  this  question.  On  the  other  hand  ; 
if  the  true  Daniel  wrote  the  book,  all  difficulty  is  easily  solved.  Daniel 
was  equally  at  home  in  both  languages,  as  his  work  fully  testifies.  He 
introduces  Chaldee  very  naturally,  when  he  comes  to  represent  Nebuchad 
nezzar  and  his  courtiers  in  mutual  conference.  He  then  continues  it 
until  the  Chaldee  history  is  completed,  and  even  onward  in  ch.  vi.  vii. 
And  why  ?  Because  he  well  knew,  that  those  whom  he  addressed,  would 
understand  the  Chaldee  quite  as  well,  or  even  better  than  they  would  the 


§6.   GENUINENESS   AND  AUTHENTICITY.  419 

Hebrew.  A  forger  in  the  Maccabaean  times  had  no  inducement  to  mix 
languages,  It  was  contrary  to  prophetic  usage  ;  and  therefore  it  would 
subject  his  book  to  suspicion. 

In  the  next  place,  it  is  not  true  that  other  books  of  that  period,  writ 
ten  on  religious  subjects,  were  received  into  the  Canon.  The  work  of  the 
Son  of  Sirach  was  written  in  Hebrew,  as  the  preface  of  the  translator  tes 
tifies.  This  work,  moreover,  is  not  without  strong  claims  on  the  pious 
mind.  Some  parts  of  it  seem  to  be  not  unworthy  of  an  inspired  pen, 
and  would  do  no  disgrace  to  the  sacred  Canon.  Nor  is  this  all.  The 
writer  himself  makes  high  claims  to  consideration.  In  24:  33, 34  he  says ; 
"  Further,  I  beam  forth  instruction  as  the  morning  light,  and  disclose 
those  things  even  to  distant  ages.  I  moreover  pour  forth  instruction  as 
prophecy  (frqo(ptnta»),  and  leave  it  for  future  ages."  Again  in  33.  19, 
he  represents  himself  as  the  last  of  the  wise  men,  and  compares  himself 
with  Solomon ;  86%aro$  JffQvnvrjGa  are  his  words.  In  30: 17, 18  he  says : 
"  Consider  that  I  have  not  labored  for  myself  alone  .  .  .  Hear  ye  rulers 
of  the  people,  and  give  ear  ye  leaders  of  the  congregation"  (cxxA^d/a?). 
At  the  close,  he  assays  to  make  strong  impressions  on  the  reader  of  his 
high  claims :  "  In  this  book  I  have  written  the  instruction  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge  .  .  .  Blessed  is  he  who  is  conversant  with  these  things,  and  he 
who  lays  them  up  in  his  heart  shall  be  wise ;  for  if  he  do  these  things,  he 
will  be  powerful  in  all  respects,  for  the  light  of  the  Lord  is  on  his  foot 
steps,"  50:  27 — 29.  We  must  consider  now,  not  only  these  high  claims, 
but  that  the  book  was  written  more  prophetico,  i.  e.  in  Hebrew  and  in 
parallelisms.  Moreover,  it  was  written  in  Palestine.  In  respect  now  to 
poetic  parallelisms,  they  are  almost  entirely  wanting  in  the  book  of  Daniel, 
although  there  are  some  approaches  to  them.  Why  then  was  not  the 
claim  of  Sirach  admitted  ?  Plainly  because  the  canon  was  already  closed. 
No  other  satisfactory  reason  can  be  given.  The  spirit  and  tenor  of  the 
book  are  certainly  not  unworthy  of  a  very  high  place.  But  Sirach  came 
too  late.  The  Canon  was  completed  and  sealed  as  such.  And  all  this,  too, 
before  the  Maccabaean  period  or  the  reign  of  Antiochus  began.  The 
lowest  point  assignable  to  the  composition  of  the  book  is  180  B.  C.  ; 
and  it  remains  to  this  day  a  disputed  question,  whether  it  was  not  writ 
ten  a  century  earlier. 

Here  then  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Jews 
thought  and  acted,  during  the  Maccabaean  period.  So  little  impression 
did  the  work  of  Jesus  Sirach  make  in  Palestine,  where  it  was  written, 
that  his  grandson,  when  he  came  to  translate  it  into  Greek,  was  obliged 
to  go  to  Egypt  in  order  to  find  a  good  copy  of  it,  worthy  of  study. 
See  Prol.  ad  Lib. 


420  §  6.   GENUINENESS   AND  AUTHENTICITT. 

Nor  is  this  all.  There  is  the  book  of  Tobit,  in  all  probability  earlier 
than  that  of  Sirach,  which  was  written  also  in  Hebrew,  and  abounds  in 
such  fictions  as  the  Maccabaean  period  is  accused  of  fostering  and 
approving.  Did  the  Jews  ever  receive  it  into  their  Canon  ?  This  is 
not  even  pretended  by  any  party. 

The  first  book  of  the  Maccabees,  also,  was  written  soon  after  the 
close  of  the  limited  Maccabaean  period,  (limited  to  the  sons  of  Matta- 
thias),  the  writer  of  it  having  evidently  been  himself  conversant  with 
a  good  part  of  that  period.  This  too  was  written  in  Hebrew,  as  Jerome 
(Prol.  Gal.)  expressly  testifies.  Nothing  could  be  more  acceptable  or 
interesting  to  the  Jews  of  that  time,  than  such  a  book.  It  is  a  very 
sober  and  veracious  book  for  the  most  part,  written  with  all  becoming 
gravity  and  earnestness.  Yet  this  never  had  any  place  in  the  Jewish 
Canon. 

I  say  nothing  of  several  other  books,  whose  claims  and  age  are  doubt 
ful.  Enough  that  the  asserted  principle  of  easy  reception  into  the 
Canon,  and  of  inability  in  the  Maccabaean  age  to  distinguish  the  respect 
ive  claims  of  books,  are  most  glaringly  contradicted  by  facts  such 
as  these.  THAT  AGE  DID  DISTINGUISH.  It  set  aside  Sirach,  Tobit, 
1  Mace.,  and  doubtless  many  other  books,  and  never  thought  of  adding 
them  to  the  Canon.  Neither  the  Hebrew,  nor  the  parallelisms,  nor  the 
pious  matter,  nor  the  lofty  claims  of  Sirach,  made  any  impression  on 
the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  of  a  just  claim  to  a  place  in  the  Canon. 

Enough  has  now  been  said  respecting  the  character  and  design  of  the 
age  of  the  Maccabees,  in  regard  to  religious  things  and  religious  books, 
to  show  the  utter  improbability  of  a  book  being  foisted  into  the  Canon 
at  that  period.  But  we  have  not  done  with  the  subject.  Proof  direct 
and  positive  of  a  defined  and  completed  Canon,  before  the  Maccabaean 
period,  can  be  produced  —  proof  that  candor  and  impartiality  can 
hardly  reject. 

The  grandson  of  Jesus  Sirach,  who  translated  his  work  into  Greek, 
says  that  his  grandfather  "  gave  himself  very  much  to  the  reading  of 
the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Other  Books  of  his  country."  By  this 
study,  he  was  excited  to  write  his  own  work.  This  triplex  division  is 
mentioned,  in  the  preface  to  the  Greek  Version,  not  less  than  three  times. 
(1)  The  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  other  (rav  aklmv)  books  following 
them  of  the  like  tenor"  (v.a.'i  avtovs).  (2)  "The  Law,  the  Prophets, 
and  the  other  Books  of  his  country,"  (TOW  aMow  TICCTQIWV 
(3)  "  The  Law,  the  Prophecies,  and  the  rest  of  the  Books  "  (to. 
zwv  /fr/3/UW).  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  translator  here 
employs  language  in  describing  the  sacred  books  which  had  been  long 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  421 

and  familiarly  current.  He  expects  his  readers  of  course  to  appre 
hend  readily  and  definitely,  what  books  are  meant.  And  what  are 
they  ?  Certainly  not  all  other  books ;  for  then  the  article  before  the 
other  or  the  rest  (TWV  aklwv,  ra  loind),  must  of  necessity  have  been 
omitted.  But  now  in  every  case,  the  article  is  inserted.  This  then 
makes  a  definite,  well-knoivn  collection  of  sacred  books  which  J.  Sirach 
studied.  And  this  collection  was  so  defined,  beyond  any  reasonable 
doubt,  before  the  time  of  Sirach ;  for  in  his  own  work,  we  have  evi 
dence  of  this.  In  45:  5,  he  speaks  of  the  vofiog  £0%  as  given  by 
Moses.  In  44 :  3,  5,  speaking  of  ancient  celebrated  men,  he  says  : 
"  They  gave  counsel  with  intelligence,  and  delivered  messages  in  proph 
ecies  (it>  7iQO(f>j]TStaig)  . . .  They  sought  out  musical  songs,  disclosing 
maxims  in  writing"  (fishy  povGixcov . . .  eny  sv  yoa(pffi.  Here  then  are 
plain  traces  of  the  triplex  division  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures ;  even 
more  specific  than  the  declarations  of  Sirach's  grandson  in  his  preface. 
Here  the  classification  as  to  matter  is  essentially  made.  We  have  the 
Law,  the  Prophets,  and  virtually  the  Psalms  and  Proverbs,  i.  e.  the  lead 
ing  and  principal  books  in  the  Hagiography.  That  n&q  (AOVGIXWV 
means  Psalms,  and  mi]  maxims,  (a  frequent  later  classical  use  of  this 
word),  there  can  be  no  good  room  to  doubt.  Jesus  Sirach  and  his 
grandson,  then,  are  united  in  proclaiming  the  existence  of  a  definite 
third  division  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  at  that  period.  If  so,  then  as 
Sirach  preceded  the  Maccabees,  the  Canon  was  not  open  in  the  time  of 
the  latter  to  any  new  comer,  but  already  definitely  completed. 

Let  us  follow  this  matter  down  to  a  later  period.  Our  next  witness 
is  Christ  himself.  In  Luke  24 :  44,  we  have  his  words  thus :  "  All 
things  must  be  fulfilled,  which  are  written  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  concerning  me."  V.  27  of  the  same  chapter 
is  substantially  of  the  like  tenor.  Here,  then,  is  the  same  thing,  viz.  tri 
plex  division,  that  we  have  already  found  in  Sirach ;  excepting  that  the 
Kethubhim  is  designated  only  by  its  leading  and  principal  book,  viz.  the 
Psalms. 

We  come  next  to  Philo  Judaeus  (flor.  circa  40  A.  D.),  who,  in  de 
scribing  the  Essenes,  says  of  them,  that  "  they  receive  the  Law,  and  the 
Oracles  uttered  by  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hymns  and  the  other  [books], 
by  which  knowledge  and  piety  are  augmented  and  perfected ; "  De  Vita 
contemplat.  ii.  p.  475,  edit.  Mangey.  Here  then  is  Sirach's  view  repro 
duced  ;  for  here  are  his  fieXay  jwov<rtxa)i>  and  In^.  And  so  also  the  Walfioi 
of  Luke,  plainly  correspond  to  the  Vfivovg  of  Philo. 

Josephus  is  more  graphic  still.     In  Cont.  Ap.  i.  8,  he  says :    «  We 
have  not  a  countless  number  of  books,  discordant  and  arrayed  against 
36 


422  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

each  other,  [like  those  of  the  heathen],  but  only  two  and  twenty  books, 
containing  the  history  of  every  age,  which  are  justly  accredited  as  divine. 
Of  these  five  belong  to  Moses,  containing  laws  and  history. . .  From 
the  death  of  Moses,  moreover,  until  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  king  of 
the  Persians  after  Xerxes,  the  Prophets  who  followed  have  described  the 
things,  which  were  done  during  the  age  of  each  one  respectively,  in  thir 
teen  books.  The  remaining  four  contain  Hymns  to  God,  and  rules  of 
life  for  men."  He  then  goes  on  to  say,  that  other  books  have  been 
written  to  describe  occurrences  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Artaxerxes, 
but  that  "  they  are  not  regarded  as  entitled  to  the  like  credit  with  those 
which  precede  them,  because  there  was  no  certain  succession  of  the 
Prophets"  He  declares,  in  the  sequel,  that  "  No  addition  to,  or  sub- 
straction  from,  them  has  ever  been  made,  during  the  lapse  of  so  long  a 
period."  Now  here  is,  as  we  might  expect,  the  identical  division  of 
Sirach,  the  New  Testament,  and  Philo.  All  the  difference  is,  that 
Josephus  has  been  more  specific  in  describing  the  third  division,  by 
averring  that  it  consists  of  Hymns  to  God  and  rules  of  life  for  men. 
That  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles  are  plainly 
included  in  this  last  division,  cannot  with  any  show  of  reason  be  denied. 
It  appears  indeed  on  the  very  face  of  the  record.  To  make  out  the 
twenty-two  books  of  Josephus,  we  have  the  Pent.  —  5  ;  the  thirteen  are 
Josh.,  Judg.  with  Ruth,  1  and  2  Sam.,  1  and  2  Kings,  1  and  2  Chron., 
Ezra  with  Neh.,  Esth.,  Job.,  Is.,  Jer.  with  Lam.,  Ezek.,  Daniel,  and 
twelve  minor  Prophets,  =  13.  Four  books  are  still  left;  and  these 
of  course  must  be  Psalms,  Prov.,  Ecc.,  and  Canticles.  That  the  books 
of  Solomon  were  counted  in  this  manner  by  the  Jews,  Origen  explicitly 
states,  (in  Euseb.  Hist.  Ecc.  IV.  25).  In  no  other  way  can  the  number 
twenty-two  be  made  out.  The  description  of  the  contents  of  the  last 
four,  puts  it  beyond  a  doubt,  moreover,  that  the  Psalms,  Prov.,  Ecc.,  and 
Canticles,  belonged  to  this  division.  Of  course,  therefore,  the  book  of 
Daniel  was  included  by  Josephus  in  the  division  of  the  Prophets.  And 
Josephus'  description,  moreover,  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  all  that 
is  said  of  the  same  third  division  in  Sirach,  the  New  Testament,  and 
Philo  Alexandrinus. 

\/  (d)  This  brings  us  to  say  something  in  regard  to  the  Masoretic  and 
Talmudic  divisions  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  which  place  Daniel  among 
the  Kethubhim  or  third  division.  The  place  thus  assigned  to  the  book 
of  Daniel,  (and  now  occupied  by  it  in  our  common  Hebrew  Bibles), 
has  been  a  matter  of  much  speculation  and  discussion,  and  has  been 
regarded  by  most  of  the  neological  critics,  as  decisive  of  the  late  com 
position  of  the  book.  This  circumstance  stands  in  the  very  front  of 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY.  423 

their  arguments  adduced  against  the  antiquity  of  the  book ;  and  it  may 
be  as  well,  or  better  discussed  here,  than  in  any  other  place. 

The  course  of  argument,  fairly  drawn  out  and  yet  compressed,  stands 
thus  :  (1)  'A  miracle  is  an  impossibility  ;  and  of  course,  real  prediction 
of  minute  future  events  is  impossible,  for  this  would  be  a  miracle.  (2) 
The  book  of  Daniel  contains  such  a  minute  account  of  the  Syrian  and 
Egyptian  (Macedonian)  kings,  that  it  is  history,  and  not  prophecy.  It 
could  have  been  written  only  post  eventum.  (3)  The  Canon,  of 
course,  could  riot  have  been  closed  until  after  the  death  of  Antiochus, 
since  Daniel  is  comprised  in  it.  (4)  This  last  position  is  confirmed  by 
the  fact,  that  Daniel  stands  near  the  close  of  Kethubhim,  separated  from 
all  his  prophetical  brethren,  who  are  honored  with  a  place  among  the 
Prophets.  No  good  account  can  be  given  of  this,  except  the  lateness 
of  its  composition.  We  must  therefore  conclude,  that  the  division  of 
the  Prophets  had  been  closed,  while  that  of  the  Kethubhim  was  kept 
open  for  later  books.' 

Such  is  the  course  of  argument  by  which  Daniel  is  to  be  degraded 
from  his  rank,  and  his  work  held  up  as  a  supposititious  book  of  fiction 
and  of  mere  pretension  to  an  oracular  character.  I  shall  not  follow 
this  view  of  the  subject  seriatim,  nor  attempt  a  separate  refutation  at 
length  of  each  assertion.  I  shall  first  make  a  few  remarks  on  some  of 
the  positions,  and  then  proceed  to  inquire  when  and  how  Daniel  came 
into  its  present  position  among  the  sacred  books. 

On  the  first  argument  I  have  nothing  more  to  say,  than  that  it  sets 
itself  immediately  in  direct  array  against  the  often  repeated  declarations 
of  the  Saviour  himself,  that  the  Old  Test,  prophets  had  predicted  his 
coming,  his  work,  and  his  sufferings  ;  and  also  against  Paul,  and  Peter, 
and  John,  who  all  testify  to  the  same  things,  and  to  the  divine  inspiration 
of  the  Old  Test.,  as  well  as  the  prophetical  powers  of  those  who  wrote 
it.  Secondly,  that  the  book  of  Daniel  contains  prophecies  of  events  so 
minute  and  circumstantial,  that  it  has  the  appearance  of  history,  yea 
is  (as  it  were)  veritable  history,  I  doubt  not.  I  fully  accede  to  this. 
But  that  it  was  written  post  eventum,  is  another  matter  ;  a  matter  to  be 
decided  by  testimony,  not  by  fore-gone  a  priori  conclusions.  The  when 
is  as  much  a  matter-of-fact  inquiry,  as  the  when  of  the  .^Eneid,  or  the 
Iliad,  or  of  Livy's  History.  Had  there  been  one  scrap  of  positive  evi 
dence  to  prove  the  lateness  of  the  composition  of  Daniel,  its  opponents 
would  not  have  failed  to  adduce  it.  But  not  finding  a  syllable  of  this 
nature  in  all  antiquity,  the  only  resort  must  be  to  the  a  priori  argument. 
But  this  unhappily  goes  too  far.  If  followed  out,  it  would  inevitably 
convict  the  Saviour  of  the  world  of  being  an  impostor  or  an  ignoramus  ; 


424  §  6.    GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

and  prove  that  all  his  apostles  must  be  ranked  under  the  same  category. 
Such  men  as  Lengerke  and  Knobel  arid  Hitzig  may  not  start  at  this, 
probably  would  not;  but  God  be  thanked,  there  are  many  thousands 
and  millions  throughout  Christendom,  who  shrink  back  with  shuddering 
from  such  fearful  conclusions. 

Thirdly,  as  the  Canon  actually  contained  Daniel,  it  remains  to  in 
quire,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  when  and  how  it  came  into  its  present  place. 
The  assertion  of  neologists,  that  the  Canon  was  kept  open  until  after 
the  death  of  Antiochus,  has  already  been  sufficiently  examined.  Scarce 
ly  any  thing  belonging  to  the  criticism  of  antiquity,  can  be  made  clearer 
or  more  certain,  than  that  before  the  time  of  Sirach  the  Canon  was 
definite  and  complete.  This  alone,  if  regarded  as  true,  completely 
overturns  the  neological  edifice.  A  post  eventum  Daniel  could,  of 
course,  have  been  written  only  after  the  death  of  Antiochus.  If  the 
Canon  was  complete  so  early  as  the  time  of  Sirach,  then  Daniel  must 
be  prophecy  ;  as  entirely  so,  and  as  much  so,  as  if  we  assign  it  to  the 
true  Daniel. 

The  last  refuge  of  our  opponents,  then,  is  the  position  of  Daniel  in 
the  Hagiography,  viz.  its  being  dissociated  from  the  other  prophets. 
How  came  the  book  there,  we  are  asked,  unless  the  division  of  the 
prophets  was  closed,  and  the  third  division  yet  left  open  ?  What  else 
could  induce  the  Rabbies  to  assign  such  a  place  to  it?  To  these  ques 
tions  many  different  answers  have  been  attempted.  I  shall  notice  only 
some  of  the  leading  ones. 

It  has  been  matter  of  surprise  to  me,  that  Hengstenberg  (Auth. 
des  Daniel,  s.  27  seq.)  assumes  as  the  basis  of  his  solution  of  the 
question,  the  opinion  of  Maimonides  and  other  Rabbies,  viz.  that  the 
triplex  division  of  the  Old  Test,  was  occasioned  by  the  different  grades 
of  inspiration  in  their  authors.  Rabbinic  speculation  and  phantasy  has 
made  three  degrees  of  inspiration,  as  it  would  seem,  viz.  (1)  That  of 
Moses,  who  talked  face  to  face  with  Jehovah.  That  was  peculiar  and 
special,  for  no  other  prophet  ever  did  the  same.  (2)  That  of  the  pro 
phets  proper,  who  were  rapt  into  such  an  ecstasy,  that  their  bodily  powers 
were  affected  and  suspended,  and  their  minds  guided  entirely  and  solely 
by  divine  influence.  Such  men  as  these  wrote  the  prophets  or  second 
division  of  the  Scriptures.  (3)  Such  as  were  quickened  and  illumin 
ated  and  guided  indeed,  but  who  still  retained  and  used  their  bodily 
and  mental  powers.  These  wrote  the  Kethubhim.  I  do  not  understand 
Hengstenberg  as  intending  to  vouch  for  the  soundness  of  this  assumed 
distinction  in  the  grades  of  inspiration,  but  as  maintaining  that  the 
Talmudists,  or  the  older  Rabbies,  who  assigned  to  Daniel  its  present 
place,  were  guided  by  such  a  rule. 


§  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  42$ 

Perhaps  this  may  be  so.  They  seem  to  have  held,  that  a  prophet 
could  not  write  a  sacred  book  abroad,  and  yet  enjoy  the  same  degree  of 
aid  as  one  in  Palestine.  In  the  Talmud.  Bab.  Megill.  fol.  10.  c.  2, 
they  assert  that  "  the  men  of  the  great  Synagogue  wrote  out  (^ns) 
Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  Esther."  This,  if  we  are  to  believe  Rabbi  Sol. 
Jarchi  (Comm.  in  Bava  Bathra),  they  did  "  because  prophecy  is  not 
given  for  any  one  to  write  in  a  foreign  land"  It  is  unnecessary  to 
examine  seriously  and  minutely  refute  all  this.  It  is  enough  to  ask  a 
few  questions,  (a)  If  Daniel  was  at  all  admitted  to  the  Canon,  (which 
no  one  denies),  it  must  have  been  on  the  ground  that  it  was  believed  to 
be  a  true  book,  and  worthy  of  credit.  None  will  deny  this.  Yet 
Daniel  claims  what  the  Rabbies  call  the  middle  grade  of  inspiration, 
like  that  of  Is.  in  6:  5,  6 ;  of  Ezekiel  in  1:  28.  2:  1,  2.  3:  24 ;  comp. 
Dan.  7:  28.  8:  18,  27.  10:  7 — 10.  Why  then  was  he  not  put  among 
the  prophets?  (b)  The  Talmudic  ground  is  self-contradictory,  as  it 
respects  the  Kethubhim.  Who  are  the  Moses  and  David,  who  appear 
in  the  Psalms,  and  the  Solomon  in  the  Proverbs  ?  Is  not  their  high 
inspiration  admitted  on  all  hands  ?  Jeremiah,  moreover,  as  a  prophet, 
is  ranked  with  the  other  prophets ;  how  then  came  his  Lamentations 
into  the  Hagiography  ?  Besides,  the  Talmud  says,  that  Moses  wrote 
the  book  of  Job ;  how  then  came  it  to  be  put  into  the  third  division  ? 
And  as  to  any  power  on  the  part  of  the  Talmudists,  to  distinguish  the 
gradations  of  inspiration,  how  shall  this  be  illustrated  or  authenticated  ? 
How  could  Ps.  ii.  xxii.  xlv.  ex.,  not  to  name  many  others,  be  supposed  to 
exhibit  less  of  inspiration  than  the  works  of  Haggai,  or  Malachi,  or 
Obadiah,  or  Jonah?  Christ  and  his  apostles  make  no  gradations  of 
authenticity  for  the  Old  Test.  Paul  says,  that  "  all  Scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God."  The  whole  matter,  then,  of  the  Rabbinical 
distinction,  is  a  figment ;  and  a  very  inconsistent  one  besides.  I  do  not 
say  that  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  the  Talmudists  to  have  been  in 
fluenced  by  it ;  for  what  conceit  is  there,  which  they  have  not  broached, 
and  brought  their  authority  to  support  ?  I  only  say,  that  there  is  not 
the  least  solidity  or  consistency  in  the  ground  here  assumed  for  putting 
Daniel  among  the  Kethubhim. 

Havernick  retreats  from  this  untenable  ground,  but  assumes  another, 
which  I  deem  to  be  equally  unsafe  and  unsolid.  He  avers  (Einleit.  § 
11),  that  'the  classification  is  grounded  on  the  distinction  between  x*O3 
and  nth  or  nip/  The  first  of  these,  he  says, '  was  officially  a  prophet; 
the  second  might  have  the  gift  and  power  of  prediction,  but  was  not 
properly  a  prophet.  The  second  class  of  scriptural  books  belong  to 
the  official  prophets ;  the  third  to  the  seers.  Daniel  was  put  in  the 

36* 


426  §  6.    GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

third  division  because  he  was  only  a  seer.  He  never  claims  to  hold 
the  proper  office  of  prophet  among  the  Hebrews ;  nor  was  he  sent  to 
address  the  Jews.'  He  avers,  moreover,  that  '  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
throughout  keep  up  the  distinction  in  question  ;'  although  he  allows  that 
the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Test,  have  usually  rendered  both  classes 
of  words  by  7iQO(pqzi]$.  How  easily  might  he  have  avoided  such  an 
ungrounded  statement,  had  he  consulted  his  Hebrew  Concordance ! 
Indeed,  1  Sam.  9:  9  of  itself  shows,  that  all  the  difference  between 
X"O5  and  nx'l  is,  that  the  latter  is  the  old  name,  and  the  other  the  new 
one  just  come  into  vogue  in  the  time  of  Samuel.  Etymologically  the 
words  are  different ;  both  designate  the  same  person.  No  assignable 
distinction  of  any  importance  can  be  made  out  between  nah  and  nm . 
That  these  latter  words  are  often  applied  to  the  same  prophet,  who  is 
elsewhere  styled  X"O3 ,  sufficiently  denotes  identity  of  meaning  in  both 
words.  E.  g.  the  collective  body  of  those  more  usually  styled  prophets, 
are  called  seers,  in  2  Kings  17:  13.  2  Chron.  33:  18.  Is.  29:  10.  30: 
10.  Mic.  3:  7.  Then  Samuel  is  fiOM  in  1  Sam.  3:  20.  2  Chron.  35: 
18,  and  h&h  in  1  Sam.  9:  11,  18,  19.  *  1  Chron.  9:  22.  26:  28.  29:  29. 
Gad  is  a  prophet  in  1  Sam.  22:  5.  2  Sam.  24:  11,  and  a  seer  in  1 
Chron.  29:  29.  Iddo  is  prophet  in  2  Chron.  13:  22,  and  seer  in  9:  29. 
Jehu  is  prophet  in  1  Kings  16:  7,  12,  and  seer  in  2  Chron.  19:  2.  The 
prophet  Amos  is  also  called  nth  seer  in  Amos  7:  12.  That  &O2i  ,  which 
in  the  time  of  Samuel  began  to  thrust  out  Sisri ,  was  afterwards  much 
more  frequently  employed  than  the  other  appellations,  is  readily  admit 
ted.  But  that  any  important  distinction  was  made  between  the  two 
classes  of  words,  is  palpably  a  mistake.  Of  course,  the  whole  superstruc 
ture  erected  upon  this  distinction  falls  with  the  distinction  itself.  What 
ever  may  have  been  the  reason  or  ground  of  the  Talmudic  arrangement, 
it  was  plainly  not  the  one  in  question. 

Omitting  to  canvass  other  less  probable  theories,  and  also  mere  phanta 
sies,  in  relation  to  the  matter  before  us,  I  shall  resort  to  a  shorter  method 
of  settling  the  controversy  ;  and  this  is,  to  show  that  the  hook  of  Daniel, 
from  the  time  of  the  earliest  testimony  concerning  it,  WAS  NOT  PLACED 

AMONG  THE  KETHUBHIM,  BUT    OCCUPIED    ITS    PROPER   PLACE   AMONG 

THE  PROPHETS,  down  to  the  time  of  Jerome  and  the  compiling  of  the  Tal 
mud.  After  all  that  has  been  exhibited  above,  the  proof  is  short  and  easy. 
We  have  seen  that  the  triplex  division  of  Law,  Prophets,  and  OtherBooks 
is  at  least  older  than  Sirach,  and  that  he  describes  the  third  division  (in 
44:  5),  as  consisting  of  [At'^q  fiovGixwv  and  'inr\  iv  yQCf-^,  i.  e.  poetry 
to  be  sung,  and  written  maxims.  He  does  not  define  more  minutely  ; 
but  this  method  of  expression  does  of  itself  exclude  Daniel  from  said  di- 


§  6»   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  427 

vision.  The  next  testimony,  in  Luke  24:  44,  designates  the  third  division 
by  the  word  Psalms,  making  out  the  title,  as  was  frequently  the  custom, 
from  the  leading  book.  But  Daniel  has  nothing  to  do  with  Psalms. 
Then  comes  Philo,  (in  Vit.  Contempl.  II.  p.  475),  who  says  of  the  Kethu- 
bhim,  that  "  they  are  hymns,  and  other  writings  designed  to  increase  know 
ledge  and  piety  ;"  which  last  clause  is  descriptive  of  Proverbs  and  Eccle- 
siastes.  That  he  includes  Daniel  in  this  last  class,  there  is  not  a  shadow 
of  proof.  Certain  it  is,  that  Josephus,  his  contemporary  in  part,  and  who 
wrote  a  few  years  after  him,  (in  Cont.  Ap.  I.  8),  beyond  all  question  ex 
cludes  Daniel  from  the  Kethubhim.  He  assigns,  as  we  have  seen,  five 
books  to  Moses,  thirteen  to  the  Prophets,  and  four  to  the  third  division, 
which,  like  all  his  predecessors,  he  describes  as  consisting  of  "  hymns  to 
God  and  rules  of  life  for  men"  His  second  division  can  by  no  possibility 
be  made  out  by  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning,  without  the  aid  of  Daniel. 
Of  course,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles,  in  his  time, 
made  out  the  Hagiography* 

But  how  stood  the  matter  afterwards  ?  The  first  catalogue,  seriatim  and 
with  the  names  of  the  books,  we  find  in  Melito  bishop  of  Sardis,  fl.  A.  D. 
170.  It  is  copied  entire  into  Euseb.  Hist.  Ecc.  IV.  26.  He  disregards 
the  order  of  succession  in  our  Heb.  Bibles,  and  follows  in  the  main  that 
of  the  Septuagint.  He  places  Daniel  after  Jeremiah  and  before  Ezekiel, 
i.  e.  between  them.  Origen,  that  great  lover  and  master  of  the  critical 
study  of  the  Scriptures,  (as  preserved  in  Euseb.  Hist.  Ecc.  IV.  25),  as 
signs  to  Daniel  the  same  place.  The  Council  of  Laodicea,  (between  A.  D. 
360 — 364),  in  their  canon  (59)  put  Daniel  among  the  Prophets,  and  next 
after  Ezekiel,  as  in  our  English  Bibles.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  (fl.  A.  D. 
350),  in  his  Catechesis  IV,  says  expressly  that  Daniel  belongs  to  the  pro 
phetical  books,  and  he  ranks  him  next  after  Ezekiel.  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen,  (fl.  A.  D.  370),  in  his  Carmen.  XXXIII.  (Opp.  II.),  ranks  Daniel 
in  the  same  way.  Athanasius  (fl.  326),  in  his  festal  Epistle  (Opp.  I. 
p.  961),  in  his  list  of  sacred  books,  ranks  Daniel  next  after  Ezekiel. 
The  Synopsis  Scrip.  Sac.,  by  an  anonymous  writer  who  was  his  contem 
porary,  (in  Athanas.  Opp.  II.  p.  126),  gives  to  Daniel  the  same  place. 
The  same  does  Epiphanius  (fl.  A.  D.  368),  in  his  De  Mens.  et  Ponder. 
.23.  II.  p.  180.  The  Council  of  Hippo,  (the  magnus  Apollo  of  the  Ro 
mish  canon),  in  A.  D.  393,  in  their  list  of  the  holy  books,  placed  Daniel 
between  Jeremiah  and  Ezek.,  just  as  Melito  and  Origen  had  done.  The 
Council  of  Carthage,  held  in  A.D.  397,  (Mansi,III.  p.  891),  follow  the  same 
order.  Hilary  of  Poictiers  (fl.  A.  D.  254)  also  arranges  Daniel  in  the 
same  order.  Rufinus  (fl.  390  A.  D.),  the  distinguished  friend  and  also  op 
ponent  of  Jerome,  puts  Daniel  next  after  Ezekiel,  and  before  the  twelve 


428  §6.   GENUINENESS  AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

Minor  Prophets ;  Expos,  in  Symb.  Apost.,  ad  calcem  Opp.  Cyp.  p.  26, 
edit.  Oxon. 

Thus  every  regular  catalogue  of  scriptural  books  in  all  antiquity,  puts 
Daniel  among  the  Prophets,  and  nearly  one  half  of  them  put  him  before 
Ezekiel.  In  this  way  we  come  to  see,  that  the  division  asserted  by  Jose- 
phus,  and  by  his  predecessors,  Sirach  and  the  N.  Test,  and  Philo,  is 
fully  and  abundantly  vindicated. 

There  is  an  additional  witness,  as  yet  only  alluded  to,  whom  we  must 
now  bring  upon  the  stand.  This  is  the  Septuagint.  It  is  all  but  certain, 
that  this  version  was  completed  as  early  at  least  as  130  B.  C.  In  thia, 
the  whole  Talmudical  arrangement  is  utterly  disregarded,  and  Daniel 
appears  between  Ezekiel  and  the  Minor  Prophets  ;  see  Bos'  edition. 

One  thing  more  should  be  remarked,  before  we  advert  to  Jerome  and 
the  Rabbies.  This  is,  that  in  all  the  catalogues  of  scriptural  books  through 
out  all  antiquity,  which  have  now  been  brought  to  view,  the  arrangement 
in  regard  to  the  books  of  the  Kethubhim,  which  Josephus  discloses,  is 
substantially  preserved.  In  all  those  catalogues,  the  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles,  are  brought  into  successive  and  immediate 
continuity  ;  nor  are  they  in  a  single  instance  separated,  as  they  are  in 
the  Masoretico-Talmudic  arrangement.  There  can  be  no  good  reason  to 
doubt,  that  before  the  Talmudists  meddled  with  the  Kethubhim,  no  sepa 
ration  of  the  four  books  in  question  was  known  or  thought  of.  Even  Je 
rome,  with  all  his  deference  to  the  Talmud,  holds  fast  to  this  continuity ; 
and  in  some  other  respects  he  has  varied  from  the  Talmud,  as  we  shall 
see  in  the  sequel. 

We  are  now  prepared  for  the  testimony  of  Jerome.  He  makes  (in 
Prol.  Gal.)  twenty-two  books,  five  belonging  to  the  Law,  eight  to  the 
Prophets,  and  nine  to  the  Hagiography.  But  still  he  puts  Ruth  into  one 
book  with  Judges,  and  Lam.  into  one  with  Jeremiah  ;  whereas  the  Tal 
mud  separates  both  of  these,  and  throws  them  into  the  Kethubhim ; 
and  of  course  it  makes  twenty-four  books.  Jerome  closes  the  third  di 
vision  in  the  following  order :  "  Daniel, 'Chron.,  Ezra,  Esther."  In  this 
arrangement  of  Daniel  he  stands  unsupported  by  a  single  witness  in  all 
antiquity,  excepting  the  Talmud.  Jerome  spent  twenty  years  among  the 
Rabbies  of  Palestine  ;  and  although  the  Talmud  was  not  written  until 
some  time  after  his  death,  yet  the  elements  of  it  were  then  concocting, 
and  from  the  Masorites  of  Tiberias  he  learned  to  arrange  the  Kethubhim 
in  the  main,  in  the  manner  stated.  It  was  natural  for  him  to  follow  in 
such  a  matter  his  masters  in  Hebrew ;  although  he  has  not  after  all  made, 
as  they  did,  twenty-four  books,  nor  thrown  either  Ruth  or  Lam.  into  the 
third  class. 


§  6.    GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY.  429 

3ut  the  Jewish  doctors  themselves  —  are  they  agreed  ?  By  no  means ; 
the  Talmud  puts  Isaiah  after  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  while  the  Masorites 
place  Isaiah  at  the  head  of  the  Prophets  proper ;  and  besides  this,  there 
are  some  other  discrepancies  in  arranging  some  of  the  smaller  books. 
The  reason  given  by  the  Talmudists  for  their  preposterous  arrangement, 
presents  a  good  specimen  of  their  skill  in  critique.  '  Isaiah,'  say  they, 
1  is  full  of  consolation,  Jeremiah  of  woe,  and  Ezek.  of  woe  first  and  con 
solation  afterwards.  It  was  meet  that  woe  should  be  joined  with  woe, 
and  consolation  with  consolation.'  Such  was  a  sufficient  reason,  in  the 
view  of  their  phantasy,  for  committing  a  real  VGTSQOV  TIOOTEQOV  in  the 
arrangement  of  these  books. 

How  much  deference  now  is  due,  to  such  Jewish  authorities  as  these  of 
the  fifth  and  sixth  century  ?  Much  less,  truly,  than  has  been  paid  to  it.  In 
dependent  of  this,  however,  there  is  not  one  scrap  of  evidence  in  all  anti 
quity  to  prove  that  Daniel  was  disconnected  from  the  other  prophets ;  but 
all  of  it  goes  in  a  solid  phalanx  to  establish  the  position,  that  he  held  a  place 
immediately  before  or  after  Ezekiel.  The  whole  affair  of  ejecting  him  from 
his  proper  heritage,  was  got  up  and  carried  through  about  the  time  of  Je 
rome,  i.  e.  near  A.  D.  400,  and  therefore  about  the  time  when  Talmudism 
was  concocting. 

But  why  did  the  Rabbies  do  this  ?  To  this  question  we  can  give  only 
a  conjectural  answer.  The  theories  of  Hengstenberg  and  Havernick,  de 
signed  to  account  for  this  transaction,  have  already  been  examined.  I 
have  not  said,  and  would  not  say,  that  the  Talmudists  never  entertained 
such  views.  My  aim  has  been  to  show  how  insufficient  and  unsatisfactory 
and  inconsistent  they  are.  Bertholdt,  as  others  had  done  before,  suggests 
that  the  ground  of  Talrnudic  arrangement  was  the  dispute  between  the 
Rabbies  and  the  Christians,  in  which  the  latter  continually  appealed  to 
Daniel  for  proof  that  the  Messiah  had  already  come.  They  designed,  he 
supposes,  to  abridge  the  credit  of  Daniel,  by  dissevering  him  from  the 
prophets.  But  although  this  seems  rather  plausible,  yet  it  will  not  bear 
the  test  of  rigid  scrutiny ;  for  surely  the  Kethubhim  were  not  regarded 
by  the  Rabbies  as  uninspired  books.  It  is  even  quite  doubtful,  whether 
they  could  have  supposed  that  such  books  as  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and 
Job,  were  less  inspired  than  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  In  fact,  the  Tal 
mud  (Bab.  Megill.  fol.  10.  c.  2.)  says  that  "  Moses  wrote  the  book  of  Job." 
David  and  Solomon  are  exceedingly  elevated  by  the  Talmudists.  Still, 
Job,  Psalms,  and  Proverbs,  are  comprised  in  their  Kethubhim.  So  is  Lam., 
while  Jer.  is  in  the  second  division.  The  degree  of  inspiration,  then,  as  a 
principle  of  division,  seems  fairly  to  be  out  of  question.  Jarchi,  perhaps, 
has  hit  on  one  reason  which  might  have  influenced  them  in  the  separation 


§  6.     GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

of  Daniel  from  his  fellow-prophets.  This  Rabbi  says  (Comm.  on  Bava 
Bathra),  that  "  prophecy  is  not  given  for  any  one  to  write  it  in  a  foreign 
country."  But  even  here  they  are  inconsistent.  Did  not  Ezekiel  write 
in  Babylonia?  Did  not  Jeremiah  write  a  part  of  his  book  in  Egypt? 
See  chap.  xlvi.  seq. 

All  attempts  then,  to  solve  this  question  respecting  the  principle  of 
division  with  any  certainty,  appear  to  be  ineffectual.  We  must  leave  it, 
as  we  are  obliged  to  leave  a  multitude  of  other  Rabbinic  conceits  and 
inventions,  as  neither  accounted  for  nor  supported. 

But  Neology  has  found,  as  stated  above,  a  new  reason  for  Daniel's 
place,  at  least  one  surely  unknown  to  the  Rabbins.  It  assures  us,  that 
*  the  first  and  second  divisions  were  closed  before  Daniel  was  written, 
and  that  the  third  division  was  kept  open  purposely  in  order  to  add  the 
later  books.' 

Lateness  of  composition,  then,  is  here  assumed  as  the  principle  which 
guided  the  combination  of  books  in  the  Kethubhim.  But  will  this  hold  ? 
Was  Moses  a  late  writer  ?  for  the  90th  Psalm  they  have  always  attrib 
uted  to  him.  Were  David  and  Solomon  late  writers  ?  And  the  book  of 
Job  —  was  this  a  late  production,  in  the  view  of  Jewish  Rabbies,  who 
attributed  it  to  Moses  ?  No ;  such  an  account  of  the  matter  is  unsatis 
factory  and  inconsistent  with  plain  facts.  Besides  this,  we  have  seen, 
that  the  Canon  was  closed  before  the  Maccabaean  age ;  and  that  there 
was  no  opening  for  Daniel  at  that  period,  not  any  more  than  there  was 
for  Sirach,  Tobit,  and  the  first  of  Maccabees. 

Besides  ;<  what  shall  we  say  to  the  latest  edition  of  neology,  which,  in 
the  person  of  Hitzig,  one  of  its  chief  exponents,  declares  that  Jonah  and 
Obadiah  were  both  written  by  the  same  person,  and  written  in  Egypt 
during  the  Maccabaean  age?  (Hitz.,  Jona  Orakel  ub.  Moab,  s.  36  ff.) 
But  how  is  this  ?  If  Daniel  was  put  into  the  Kethubhim,  because  it  was 
written  so  late  as  that  time,  why  was  not  the  author  of  Jonah  and  Oba 
diah  assigned  to  the  same  location  for  the  same  reason  ?  Is  neology 
consistent,  then,  with  itself? 

I  trust  that  enough  has  now  been  said,  to  show  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt  or  contradiction,  that  Daniel  was  never  put  among  the  Kethubhim, 
until  near  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  ;  and  then  only  by  the  Rabbies, 
from  whom  Jerome  received  his  account  of  the  number  and  order  of  the 
sacred  books,  as  he  himself  declares.  From  him  and  his  teachers  has 
been  derived  that  classification  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  which  has 
been  prevalent  since  that  period,  and  which  appears  in  most  if  not  all  of 
our  printed  Hebrew  Bibles.  That  this  is  against  the  testimony  of  the 
Sept.,  Sirach,  N.  Test.,  Philo,  Josephus,  Melito,  Origen,  the  Council  of 


§  6.   GENUINENESS  AND   AUTHENTICITY,  431 

Laodicea,  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Athanasius,  Synop. 
Scrip.  Sac.,  Epiphanius,  the  Council  of  Hippo,  and  that  of  Carthage, 
Hilary,  and  Rufinus,  has  been  shown  above.*  I  do  not  know  of  a  single 
error,  in  regard  to  ancient  critical  matters,  which  has  been  so  long  and 
generally  admitted  as  the  one  in  question,  nor  scarcely  any  one  of  the 
like  nature,  which  has  been  so  little  examined.  It  would  seem,  that 
confidence  in  Talmudic  doctors,  as  to  the  point  before  us,  has  been  as 
complete  and  as  general  as  they  could  desire ;  and  it  has  been  even 
more  implicit  than  that  of  Jerome. 

Such  being  the  actual  state  of  the  case,  we  may  know  what  answer  to 
give  to  neological  assertions  respecting  Daniel's  place  in  the  Canon. 
The  main  external  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  is 
derived  by  the  liberal  critics  from  the  location  of  Daniel  among  the  books 
of  the  Hagiography.  The  simple  answer  is,  that  facts  contradict  the 
assumption  that  Daniel  was  ever  ranked  in  this  way,  before  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century  of  the  Christian  era.  Within  the  last  half  of  that 
century,  we  have  a  cloud  of  witnesses  that  such  an  arrangement  was 
unknown  in  the  churches ;  for  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  Cyrill  of  Jerusa 
lem,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Athanasius,  the  author  of  the  Synopsis  Scrip. 
Sac.,  Epiphanius,  the  Councils  of  Hippo  and  of  Carthage,  Hilary,  and 
Rufinus,  all  testified  during  this  period,  and  every  one  of  these,  as  well 
as  Melito  and  Origen,  puts  Daniel  immediately  before  or  after  Ezekiel. 
It  was  only  those  that  had  opportunity  to  pry  into  the  Kabbala  of  Rab- 
binism,  who  had  any  cognizance  of  Daniel  as  being  separated  from  his 
fellow-prophets ;  and  Jerome  was  the  only  man  among  them  all,  who 
was  conversant  with  Rabbinical  lore,  and  all  that  he  does  is,  to  tell  us 
how  the  Rabbies  of  his  day  classified  the  sacred  books.  The  fact  we  do 
not  deny.  But  we  assert,  because  we  think  we  have  fully  proved,  that 
such  a  classification  of  Daniel  as  the  one  in  question,  was  a  recent  conceit, 
produced  in  the  concoction  of  Talmudism. 

In  confirmation  of  the  opinion  that  the  Canon  (Kethubhim)  was  open 
to  addition,  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  our  opponents  appeal  to  the 
so-called  Maccabaean  Psalms,  and  ask :  <  How  came  these  into  the  Canon  ? 
The  answer  is  simple  and  easy,  viz.  that  this  is  only  proving  the  amount 
of  an  unknown  quantity  by  reference  to  another  equally  unknown.  The 
Maccabaean  Psalms !  We  have  often  enough  heard  this  decantated,  and 
have  sought  in  vain  for  a  single  proof,  external  or  internal,  of  origin  in 
the  Maccabaean  age,  but  have  never  been  able  to  find  any.  Even  De 
Wette,  whose  proclivity  to  critical  suspicions  is  everywhere  prominently 

*  See  all  the  passages  relating  to  this  subject,  at  full  length,  in  the  appendix  to 
my  little  work  on  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 


432  §  6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

developed,  pronounces  the  matter  in  question  to  be  doubtful  (zwei'felhaft), 
Einl.  ins  Alt.  Test.  §  271,  edit.  3.  Rosenmiiller,  who  once  held  the 
opinion  in  question,  has  given  it  up  in  his  last  edition  of  the  Psalms.  How 
any  one  can  examine  the  Comm.  Crit.  de  Psal.  Maccab.  (4to  1827)  of 
Hassler,  and  yet  persevere  in  this  opinion,  I  am  unable  to  see.  One 
specimen  of  argumentation  will  suffice.  Of  all  the  Psalms  (xliv.  Ixxiv. 
Ixxvi.  Ixxix.  Ixxxiii.  cxix.)  said  to  be  Maccabaean,  it  will  be  acknowledged 
that  the  seventy-ninth  has  much  the  strongest  claims  to  be  so  con 
sidered.  Yet  in  1  Mace.  7:  17,  the  second  verse  of  this  very  Psalm  is 
quoted,  and  applied  as  a  prediction  of  the  slaughter  of  the  sixty  priests 
described  in  the  context. 

Some  other  books  have  here  and  there  been  assigned  to  a  Maccabaean 
period.  But  no  serious  impression  has  been  made  by  such  an  assignment, 
and  the  arguments  employed  in  its  favor  are  too  unimportant  to  need 
notice. 

We  have  now  seen  on  what  a  sandy  foundation  the  structure  of  oppo 
sition  to  the  book  of  Daniel  is  built,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  place  which 
it  holds  in  the  Canon.  We  have  seen  that  all  antiquity,  down  to  about 
A.  D.  400,  assigned  the  book  to  the  division  of  the  Prophets,  and  not  to 
the  Hagiography.  We  have  also  seen,  that  the  Canon  was  closed  before 
the  period  of  Antiochus.  Our  general  position  under  our  fourth  head, 
then,  that  the  canonicity  of  the  book  goes  to  establish  its  genuineness,  is 
illustrated,  and  (as  we  believe)  amply  confirmed. 

But  we  have  not  yet  done  with  this  matter  concerning  the  antiquity 
of  a  definite  Canon.  There  is  another  argument,  which,  although  I  do 
not  remember  to  have  seen  it  anywhere  adduced,  seems  to  me  to  be  of 
great  if  not  absolutely  conclusive  weight.  It  is  this.  The  well  known 
sects  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  were  in  existence  long  before  the 
Christian  era.  The  Jewish  tradition  ascribes  the  name  and  origin  of  the 
Sadducees  to  one  pin^ ,  i.  e.  Zadok,  who  flourished  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy 
Euergetes,  about  240  B.  C.  The  probability  is,  that  they  were  still 
more  ancient ;  but  be  that  as  it  may,  this  is  enough  for  our  purpose. 
The  matter  in  dispute,  which  brought  out  or  raised  up  the  two  sects  just 
named,  was  the  simple  but  very  important  question :  Whether  the  Scrip 
tures  were  the  sufficient  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  The  Phari 
sees  maintained  the  authority  of  tradition,  and  agreed  with  what  the 
doctors  of  the  Mishna  afterwards  taught.  The  Sadducees  were  strict 
and  rigid  Scripturists ;  just  as  the  Karaites  (D^x^p)  among  the  Jews  of 
modern  times  are.  That  the  accusations  brought  against  the  Sadducees, 
of  rejecting  all  the  books  of  the  O.  Test,  except  the  Pent.,  are  utterly 
groundless,  has  often  been  shown  of  late.  Winer  has  done  a  good  ser- 


I  §  6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY.  433 

vice  in  regard  to  this  matter,  in  his  Bibl.  Real-Worterbuch,  art.  Sadducaer. 
Free  and  skeptical  notions  about  some  things,  the  Sadducees  of  our 
Saviour's  time  entertained,  as  we  know  by  the  N.  Test. ;  but  of  the 
assertion  that  they  ever  rejected  any  portion  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
there  is  not  any  proof  at  all.  Nay,  there  is,  as  Winer  has  shown, 
abundant  evidence  of  the  contrary. 

It  is  quite  probable,  that  the  sects  in  question  date  back  to  the  time 
of  the  Persian  domination  in  Palestine,  or  very  near  to  it.  At  all  events, 
we  find  them  fully  developed,  and  in  the  most  heated  contest,  in  the  days 
of  John  Hyrcanus,  the  nephew  of  Judas  Maccabaeus,  and  son  of  Simon 
his  brother.  This  man  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  most  distinguished  of 
all  his  illustrious  house,  being  prince,  high  priest,  and  (as  Josephus 
thinks)  favored  with  some  divine  communications.  He  began  life  as  a 
most  zealous  Pharisee.  In  the  sequel  he  took  offence  at  the  reproaches 
of  one  Eleazer,  a  turbulent  man  of  the  same  sect,  and  because  the  Phari 
sees  would  not  mete  out  adequate  punishment  to  the  offender,  Hyrcanus 
went  over  to  the  Sadducees,  and  had  no  more  connection  with  his  former 
associates.  Josephus  has  told  the  whole  of  this  story,  in  Antiq.  XIII. 
10.  3,  5 — 7.  The  whole  narration  of  the  matter  makes  an  impression 
on  the  reader,  that  the  sects  had  then  been  formed  for  a  long  time,  and 
were  most  inveterately  divided  and  hostile.  The  Pharisees  did  all  they 
could  to  put  down  John  Hyrcanus,  after  he  quitted  them.  In  Antiq. 
XIII.  10.  6  and  XVIII.  1.  4,  Josephus  states  very  explicitly,  that  the 
great  point  in  dispute  between  the  two  parties,  was  the  sufficiency  of  the 
Scriptures  alone,  the  one  defending  this  position,  and  the  other  appealing 
to  tradition  as  well  and  as  much  as  to  Scripture. 

This  state  of  matters  and  of  opinions,  then,  necessarily  implies  several 
important  things ;  (1)  That  the  Scriptures  were  already  a  definite,  well 
known,  and  authoritative  collection  or  code.  The  Pharisees  conceded 
this  as  fully  as  the  Sadducees.  But  they  clung  also  to  traditional  oral 
laws  or  maxims,  as  designed  to  be  a  supplement  to  the  Scriptures.  Yet 
they  never  undertook  to  intermingle  and  combine  the  two.  Indeed  it 
was  not  until  more  than  200  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  that  the  tra 
ditional  laws  of  the  Pharisees  were  embodied  in  writing,  i.  e.  when  the 
Mishna  was  composed.  Of  course  the  matter  of  the  Mishna  could  never 
intermingle  with  the  genuine  Scriptures.  If  these,  moreover,  had  not 
been  definite,  there  could  have  been  no  quarrel  about  extraneous  addi 
tions.  (2)  The  quarrel  having  first  arisen  on  the  very  point  of  the 
exclusive  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  neither  party  could  ever  add  any 
thing  to  the  Scriptural  books,  and  cause  it  to  be  acknowledged  by  the 
other.  The  thing  was  impossible.  Nor  did  either  party  ever  attempt, 

37 


434  §  6.     GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

so  far  as  we  know,  to  add  to  the  number  of  the  sacred  books.  Every  at 
tempt  must  evidently  have  been  futile.  The  case  is  just  such  an  one,  in 
its  main  aspect,  as  the  question  between  the  Jews  and  the  Romanists,  in 
regard  to  the  Apocrypha.  The  latter  acknowledge  and  defend  it  as  a 
deutero-canon,  as  they  eulogistically  call  it ;  while  the  Jews  have  ever 
looked  on  the  Apocrypha  with  disdain  and  contempt,  in  respect  to  any 
claims  set  up  for  it  as  a  part  of  their  sacred  volume.  They  never  have 
acknowledged  it,  and  probably  never  will  acknowledge  it.  Yet  even 
the  Romanists  do  not  pretend,  that  the  apocryphal  books  were  attached 
by  the  Jews  to  their  Scriptures.  And  so  it  was  with  the  Pharisees  and 
and  Sadducees.  Neither  party  ever  tried  to  enlarge  the  sacred  volume 
itself.  Right  glad  we  may  naturally  suppose,  might  a  thorough  Phari 
saical  devotee  have  been,  to  give  his  traditional  law  all  the  authority 
of  Scripture,  and  to  attach,  it  may  be,  some  book  like  the  Mishna  to 
his  Bible.  But  he  well  knew  the  effort  would  be  vain.  The  scrip 
tural  books  must  therefore  continue  to  remain  by  themselves,  and  have 
no  new  associates. 

All  this  now  has  its  basis  in  historical  facts.  The  opposing  sects  did 
exist.  The  question  that  raised  up  the  sects,  was,  whether  any  addition 
could  be  made  to  scriptural  authority.  Moreover,  the  sects  arose,  most 
plainly,  some  considerable  time  before  the  reign  of  John  Hyrcanus ; 
and  very  probably  near  the  close  of  the  Persian,  or  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Macedonian,  domination  in  Palestine.  After  the  sects  arose,  such 
was  the  nature  of  the  quarrel,  that  all  addition  to,  or  diminishing  from, 
the  Scriptures  then  extant  was  morally  impossible.  It  follows,  then,  as 
an  inevitable  consequence  of  all  this,  that  the  Jewish  Canon  was  com 
pleted  before  the  Maccabaean  period.  Of  course,  the  book  of  Daniel 
belonged  to  it  before  that  period,  for  it  could  not  have  been  added  after 
it ;  and  if  so,  then  is  its  place  in  the  Canon  strong  testimony  in  favor 
of  its  antiquity  and  authority.  Our  opponents  do  not  even  pretend, 
that  between  the  time  of  the  real  Daniel  and  that  of  the  supposititious 
one  at  the  Maccabaean  period,  there  was  any  occasion  for  writing  the 
book,  or  any  person  who  could  write  it.  If  indeed  any  such  person  did 
write  it  in  that  intervening  period,  then  he  must  plainly  have  been  a 
prophet  in  the  true  sense  of  that  word  ;  but  the  possibility  of  this  Neology 
denies. 

(e)  In  confirmation  of  what  has  been  said  above,  to  show  that  the 
book  of  Daniel  was  written  and  belonged  to  the  Canon,  before  the  Macca 
baean  period,  and  not  at  that  time,  may  be  adduced  several  striking  dis 
crepancies  as  to  some  important  doctrines,  between  the  books  of  the 
Maccabaean  age  and  the  book  of  Daniel.  (1)  It  is  acknowledged,  on 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY.  435 

all  hadns,  that  the  Christology  of  the  book  of  Daniel  is  peculiar  for  its 
amplitude  and  its  speciality.  Indeed,  Lengerke  himself  appeals  to  it 
as  a  proof,  that  the  book  could  not  have  been  written  at  an  early 
period  ;  and  this  because  none  of  the  earlier  prophets  exhibit  a  Christ 
ology  so  fully  developed.  But  he  has  ignored  the  Christology  of  the 
Maccabaean  age,  and  has  not  led  us  at  all  to  see  whether  Messianic 
expectations  are  developed  in  that  age,  in  a  manner  kindred  to  that  of 
Daniel.  Whether  this  proceeds  from  haste  or  design  in  Lengerke,  is 
not  my  present  task  to  inquire.  Thus  much  I  have  learned  by  studying 
the  pages  of  this  author,  (who  is  the  Coryphaeus  of  Daniel's  oppo 
nents),  viz.  that  he  needs  looking  after,  and  that  it  is  better  to  trust  to 
one's  own  researches,  than  to  his  representations. 

How  then  does  this  whole  matter  stand  ?  It  stands  thus :  Daniel 
exhibits  more  Messianic  matter  in  proportion  to  the  length  of  his  book, 
than  any  other  writer  of  the  Old  Test.  One  may  truly  say,  that  the 
Messianic  development  constitutes  the  very  kernel  or  essence  of  the 
whole  book.  The  first  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar  brings  out,  on  the 
part  of  the  interpreter,  a  striking  development  of  the  fifth  or  Messianic 
universal  and  perpetual  empire,  2:  44,  45.  The  first  vision  of  Daniel 
does  this  more  amply  still;  see  7:  13,  14,  27.  In  7:  13  the  human 
nature  and  person  of  the  Messiah  is  specifically  developed,  and  he  is 
called  by  the  very  name  (Son  of  Man)  which  he  so  often  bestowed  on 
himself.  The  characteristics  of  his  dominion  and  empire  are  the  same 
here,  as  in  the  preceding  case.  His  coming  and  atonement  are  again 
declared  in  9:  24.  In  12:  1 — 3  we  have  the  events  that  will  ensue  after 
his  coming,  viz.  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  retributions  of 
eternity.  What  prophet  in  the  Old  Test,  has  so  plainly  revealed  these 
several  particulars  ? 

But  how  was  this  matter  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  ?  In  the  book 
of  Tobit,  we  find  two  passages  which  seem  to  be  built  on  some  vague  and 
floating  Messianic  ideas.  They  are  in  13:  7 — 18.  14:  4 — 7,  and  ex 
hibit  a  probable  reference  to  the  prophets,  who  had  predicted  the  return 
of  the  Jews  from  all  foreign  countries,  the  building  up  and  adorning  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  submission  of  the  nations  to  the  Jewish  dominion. 
But  all  these  are  plainly  understood  in  their  literal  sense.  No  spiritual 
Messianic  kingdom  is  even  hinted  at.  In  1  Mace.  2:  57  and  Sir.  47: 
11,  are  two  passages  which  pertain  to  the  splendor  and  perpetuity  of 
David's  throne,  i.  e.  they  refer  to  Ps.  89:  36  literally  interpreted.  In 
Sir.  32:  19,  there  is  a  passage  which  asserts  the  future  general  pros 
perity  of  the  Jewish  nation.  In  1  Mace.  14:  41,  a  prophet  yet  to  come 
is  adverted  to ;  but  plainly  it  is  a  prophet  of  the  ordinary  stamp,  for 


436  §  6.    GENUINENESS    AND   AUTHENTICITY. 


the  word  is  ff^tgHnpr,  i.  e.  it  is  without  the  article,  whereas,  if  the  Mes 
siah  had  been  meant,  the  insertion  of  the  article  was  plainly  neces 
sary. 

These  are  all  that  look  like  Messianic  predictions  in  the  whole  of  the 
Apocrypha.  What  a  striking  contrast  between  Sirach,  Tobit,  and  1 
Mace,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  on  the  other  !  In 
the  Apocrypha,  what  little  it  contains  of  this  nature  is  mere  generaliza 
tion,  and  altogether  of  a  temporal  and  civil  aspect.  Not  a  single  pas 
sage  has  respect  to  a  spiritual  kingdom,  and  a  spiritual  redemption. 
All  is  purely  national,  merely  Jewish,  limited  to  one  people,  or  extended 
to  others  only  in  proportion  as  they  submit  to  the  Jews.  In  Daniel,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  kingdom  is  universal  ;  the  views  of  a  future  period 
are  most  extensive  and  cosmopolitan.  He  tells  us  of  "  making  recon- 
cilation  for  iniquity,  of  bringing  in  everlasting  righteousness,  and  of 
confirming  vision  and  prophecy,"  9:  24.  He  discloses  to  us  a  personal 
Messiah  ;  also  a  resurrection,  and  a  general  judgment  ;  but  the  Apoc 
rypha  has  nothing  of  all  these.  Only  2  Mace.,  (a  late  production,  and 
far  from  being  authentic),  in  7:  9  seq.  speaks  of  a  resurrection  ;  but 
even  here,  it  speaks  only  of  the  just.  Nor  has  this  any  connection  with 
the  Messiah.  This  is  all  that  the  Apocrypha  yields,  in  regard  to  these 
momentous  topics.  How  barren,  how  poor,  how  frigid,  in  comparison 
with  the  soul-stirring  declarations  of  Daniel  ! 

It  is  a  fair  question  now  to  ask  :  How  came  all  this  ?  The  writer  of 
Daniel,  in  the  midst  of  the  Maccabaean  time  and  partaking  of  the 
common  views  of  his  contemporaries,  as  we  should  naturally  suppose  — 
this  writer  makes  a  more  ample  Christological  development  than  any 
other  prophet  of  the  Old  Test.,  while  all  his  contemporaries  are  either 
profoundly  silent  on  these  great  topics,  or,  if  they  are  not  silent,  they 
say  nothing  of  the  same  tenor  and  significancy  as  the  words  of  Daniel  ! 
And  all  this  too,  from  a  forger  of  a  book  —  a  singular  person,  one 
would  think,  to  cherish  and  develop  such  views  !  No;  the  thing  is  not 
credible.  It  is  wholly  opposed  to  the  state  of  opinion  in  the  Maccabaean 
age.  It  is  on  the  very  face  of  the  whole  Apocrypha,  that  nothing  but 
obscure  and  floating  and  general  conceptions  were  entertained  at  that  time, 
about  a  Messiah,  or  a  Messianic  kingdom.  The  Daniel  before  us  stands 
much  more  nearly  connected  with  Is.,  and  Micah,  and  Jer.,  and  Joel, 
and  other  ancient  prophets,  than  with  the  writers  of  the  Maccabaean 
period.  It  is  on  that  account  that  he  merits,  and  has  obtained,  a  place 
in  the  ancient  Canon  ;  and  the  fact  that  he  did,  pleads  strongly  for  the 
genuineness  and  authenticity  of  his  book. 
Besides  these  striking  discrepancies  between  the  spirit  and  tenor  of 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  437 

Daniel's  book  and  the  productions  of  the  Maccabaean  period,  there  are 
several  other  circumstances  which  serve  to  show  how  incongruous  it  is 
to  attribute  Daniel  to  that  late  age.  For  example  ;  would  a  Maccabaean 
Jew  ever  have  thought  of  giving  to  Daniel  and  his  companions  names 
compounded  with  those  of  idol-gods,  as  in  Daniel  1:  7  ?  Would  he 
have  thought  of  placing  Daniel  at  the  head  of  the  heathen  Magi  ?  2: 
48.  At  least,  would  he  not  have  thrown  some  qualifying  or  mitigating 
circumstance  into  the  account,  which  would  show  how  Daniel  escaped 
participating  in  the  rites  of  the  heathen  priests  ?  And  further,  at  the 
Maccabaean  period,  would  a  writer  have  thought  of  making  Daniel  the 
subject  of  such  sympathy  for  an  idolatrous  king,  and  a  tyrant  and  an 
oppressor  of  his  own  people,  as  is  exhibited  in  Daniel  4:  19  ? 

But  leaving  circumstances  of  this  nature,  which  might  easily  be 
multiplied,  let  us  take  into  view  the  aesthetical  character  of  the  book. 
What  composition  of  the  Maccabaean  age  can  compare  with  it  in  this 
respect  ?  What  is  there  in  all  the  Apocrypha,  that  approaches  the  lofty, 
animated,  independent  spirit  and  tone  of  Daniel  ?  What  apocryphal 
narrations  approach  the  vivid  and  deeply  exciting  narratives  found  in 
his  book  ?  Some  of  the  apocryphal  histories  are  pleasantly  written ; 
and  some  of  them  seriously  and  pretty  accurately,  e.  g.  1  Mace. ;  but 
they  are  tameness  itself  compared  with  those  of  Daniel.  Well  has 
Fenelon  said :  "  Read  Daniel,  denouncing  to  Belshazzar  the  vengeance 
of  God  all  prepared  to  burst  upon  him,  and  then  search  the  most  sub 
lime  originals  of  antiquity,  and  find  if  you  can  any  thing  which  will 
bear  comparison  with  these  passages."  What  well  informed  reader, 
capable  of  appreciating  style,  will  not  applaud  this  sentiment  ?  Painters 
have  chosen  the  narration  respecting  Belshazzar,  as  presenting  an  ad 
mirable  subject  for  the  highest  efforts  of  their  skill  and  powers.  As 
men  of  taste  they  have  chosen  well.* 

I  freely  grant,  that  the  evidence  on  which  I  have  been  insisting,  under 
this  last  head,  is  more  of  a  negative  than  positive  character.  In  other 
words,  it  suggests  as  a  reason  why  we  ought  not  to  attribute  the  book 
of  Daniel  to  the  Maccabaean  age,  that  there  were  in  that  age  no  other 
productions  of  the  like  character  and  contents.  I  know  that  this  will 
not  prove  conclusively,  that  Daniel  was  not  written  then ;  for  it  is  within 
the  bounds  of  possibility,  that  such  a  man  might  rise  up,  distinguished  in 


*  Who  among  us  does  not  remember,  with  unfeigned  regret,  the  half  finished 
picture  of  our  greatest  historical  painter,  who  was  arrested  by  sudden  and  unex 
pected  death,  in  the  midst  of  his  favorite,  his  last,  and  his  greatest  undertaking, 
the.  Feast  of  Belshazzar  ? 

37* 


438  §  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

so  remarkable  a  manner  from  all  his  contemporaries.  But  is  it  pro 
bable  ?  If  a  book  should  now  come  to  light  in  England,  and  bear  upon 
its  title  page  the  assertion,  that  it  was  written  in  the  time  of  Henry  the 
eighth,  and  that  book  should  have  all  the  qualities  of  Addison's  style, 
or  of  Goldsmith's,  would  any  one  believe  the  title-page  ?  Not  one,  is 
the  ready  answer.  Then  why  (mutatis  mutandis)  should  the  book  of 
Daniel  be  assigned  to  the  Maccabaean  age,  which  is  as  discrepant  from 
it  in  respect  to  style  and  manner  of  thinking,  as  Addison  or  Goldsmith 
is  from  the  writers  under  Henry  the  eighth  ?  If  the  existence  of  such 
a  Maccabaean  writer  is  possible,  it  is  to  the  last  degree  improbable. 

(5)  The  accurate  knowledge,  which  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel 
displays,  of  ancient  history,  manners  and  customs,  and  oriental-Baby 
lonish  peculiarities,  shows  that  he  must  have  lived  at  or  near  the  time 
and  place,  when  and  where  the  book  leads  us  to  suppose  that  he 
lived. 

A  great  variety  of  particulars  might  be  adduced  to  illustrate  and 
confirm  this  proposition ;  but  I  aim  only  to  introduce  the  leading  and 
more  striking  ones. 

( a)  In  drawing  the  character  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  giving  some 
brighter  spots  to  it,  Daniel  agrees  with  hints  of  the  like  nature  in  Jer. 
42:  12.  39:  11.     If  a  writer  in  the  Maccabaean  age  had  undertaken,  as 
is  asserted,  to  symbolize  Antiochus  Epiphanes  by  drawing  the  character 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  it  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  how  he  would  have 
been  persuaded  to  throw  into  the  picture  these  mellower  tints. 

(b)  In  drawing  the  portrait  of  Belshazzar,  the  last  king  of  Babylon, 
Daniel  agrees  very  strikingly  with  Xenophon.     In  this  latter  writer,  he 
appears  as  a  debauched,  pleasure-loving,  cruel,  and  impious  monarch. 
Cyrop.  iv.  v.  represents  him  as  killing  the  son  of  Gobryas,  one  of  his 
nobles,  because  he  had  anticipated  him,  while  hunting,  in  striking  down 
the   game.     When   the  father  remonstrated,  he  replied,  that  he  was 
sorry  only  that  he  had  not  killed  him  also.     In  Lib.  v.  2,  he  is  styled 
haughty  and  abusive.     One  of  his  concubines  spoke  in  praise  of  Ga- 
dates,  a  courtier,  as   a  handsome   man.     The  king  invited   him   to  a 
banquet,  and  there  caused  him  to  be  seized  and  unmanned.     It  is  all  in, 
keeping  with  this,  when  he  appears  in  Daniel  v.     In  his  intoxication, 
and  pride,  he  orders  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  Jerusalem-temple  to  be 
profaned ;  and  Daniel  is  so  disgusted  with  his  behaviour,  that  he  does 
not,  as  in  the  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (chap,  iv.),  disclose  any  strong 
sympathy  for  him,  but  denounces  unqualified  destruction.     Xenophon 
calls  this  king,  avoaios. 

(c)  Cyaxares  (Darius  the  Mede  in  Dan.)  is  drawn  by  Xenophon  as 


§6.   GENUINENESS   AND  AUTHENTICITY.  439 

devoted  to  wine  and  women  (Cyrop.  IV.).  In  Dan.  6: 19  it  is  mentioned 
of  Darius  as  an  extraordinary  thing,  that  after  he  saw  the  supposed  ruin 
of  Daniel,  he  neither  approached  his  table  or  his  harem.  Xenophon 
speaks  of  him  as  indolent,  averse  to  business,  of  small  understanding,  vain, 
without  self-restraint,  and  easily  thrown  into  tears  j  and  then  moreover 
as  subject  to  violent  outbursts  of  passion  (iv.  v.).  In  Daniel  he  appears 
as  wholly  governed  by  his  courtiers  ;  they  flatter  his  vanity  and  obtain 
the  decree  intended  to  destroy  Daniel.  Daniel's  supposed  impending  fate 
throws  him  into  lamentation,  and  he  betakes  himself  to  fasting  and  vigils  j 
and  when  he  learns  the  safety  of  his  Hebrew  servant,  he  sentences  his 
accusers,  with  all  their  wives  and  children,  to  be  thrown  into  the  lions' 
den,  6: 18—24. 

Now  as  there  was  no  history  of  these  times  and  kings  among  the  He 
brews,  and  none  among  the  Greeks  that  gave  any  minute  particulars,  in 
what  way  did  a  late  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel  obtain  his  knowledge  ? 

(d)  When  in  Dan.  1:  21  it  is  stated,  that  Daniel  continued  until  the 
first  year  of  Cyrus,  without  any  specification  when  this  was,  the  writer 
seems-  plainly  to  suppose  his  readers  to  be  familiar  with  this  period.     It 
is  true,  that  from  the  book  of  Ezra  a  knowledge  of  that  time,  the  period 
of  Jewish  liberation,  might  be  gained ;  but  the  familiar  manner  of  the 
reference  to  it,  indicates  that  the  writer  feels  himself  to  be  addressing 
those,  who  were  cognizant  of  matters  pertaining  to  the  period. 

(e)  In  ch.  i.  and  ii.  we  are  told  that  king  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged 
Jerusalem,  took  it,  and  sent  Daniel  and  his  companions  to  Babylon. 
There  they  were  taken  under  the  care  and  instruction  of  learned  men 
among  the  Chaldees,  and  trained  up  for  the  personal  service  of  the  king. 
The  period  of  training  was  three  years.     At  the  close  of  this,  they  were 
examined  and  approved  by  the  king ;  and  soon  after  this  occurred  Nebu 
chadnezzar's  first  dream,  which    Daniel  was   summoned  to  interpret. 
This  dream  is  said  to  be  in  the  second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign. 
Here  then  is  an  apparent  parachronism.    How  could  Daniel  have  been 
taken  and  sent  into  exile  by  king  Nebuchadnezzar,  educated  three  years, 
and  then  be  called  to  interpret  a  dream  in  the  second  year  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar's  reign  ?     The  solution  of  this  difficulty  I  have  already  exhibited 
in  an  Exc.  at  the  end  of  the  commentary  on  ch.  i.     I  need  not  repeat  the 
process  here.    It  amounts  simply  to  this,  viz.  that  Nebuchadnezzar  is 
called  king  in  Dan.  1:  1,  by  way  of  anticipation  ;  a  usage  followed  by 
Kings,  Chron.,  and  Jeremiah.     Before  he  quitted  Judea  he  became  ac 
tual  king  by  the  death  of  his  father ;  and  the  Jews,  in  speaking  of  him  as 
commanding  the  invading  army,  always  called  him  king.   But  in  Dan.  2: 1, 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  spoken  of  in  the  Chaldee  mode  of  reference  to  his 


440  §6.    GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

actual  reign.  This  leaves  some  four  years  for  Daniel's  discipline  and 
service.  But  to  those  who  were  not  familiar  with  the  Jewish  mode  of 
speaking  in  respect  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  it  would  naturally  and  inevitably 
appear  like  a  parachronism,  or  even  a  downright  contradiction  of  dates. 
Yet  the  writer  has  not  a  word  of  explanation  to  make.  He  evidently  feels 
as  if  all  were  plain  to  his  readers ;  (as  doubtless  it  was).  But  a  writer  of 
th,e  Maccabaean  age  would  plainly  have  seen  and  avoided  the  difficulty. 

(/)  In  Dan.  5: 30,  it  is  stated  that  Belshazzar  was  slain ;  but  not  a  word 
is  said  descriptive  of  the  manner  in  which  this  was  brought  about,  nor  even 
that  the  city  of  Babylon  was  taken.  The  next  verse  simply  mentions  that 
Darius  the  Mede  took  the  kingdom.  All  this  brevity  seems  to  imply,  that 
the  writer  supposed  those  whom  he  was  addressing  to  be  cognizant  of  the 
whole  matter.  Had  he  lived  in  the  Maccabaean  age,  would  he  have  writ 
ten  thus  respecting  events  so  interesting  and  important  ?  —  In  like  man 
ner  Dan.  10:  1  seq.  tells  us,  that  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus,  Daniel 
mourned  and  fasted  three  weeks.  But  not  a  word  is  said  to  explain  the 
occasion  of  this  peculiar  and  extraordinary  humiliation.  If  we  turn  now 
to  Ezra  4:  1 — 5,  we  shall  find  an  account  of  a  combination  among  the 
enemies  of  the  Jews  to  hinder  the  building  of  the  city  walls,  which  was 
successful,  and  which  took  place  in  the  third  JQ^Y  of  Cyrus'  reign,  i.  e.  the 
same  year  with  Daniel's  mourning.  There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  that 
this  was  the  occasion  of  that  mourning ;  for  certainly  it  was  no  ritual,  le 
gal,  or  ordinary  fast.  The  manner  now  in  which  ch.  x.  is  written,  plainly 
imports  that  the  writer  feels  no  need  of  giving  explanations.  He  takes  it 
for  granted  that  his  readers  will  at  once  perceive  the  whole  extent  of  the 
matter.  But  how,  in  the  Maccabaean  age,  could  a  writer  suppose  this 
knowledge  within  the  grasp  of  his  readers  ? 

(<?)  In  Dan.  ii.  the  dream  is  interpreted  as  indicating  the  destruction  of 
the  Babylonish  empire  by  the  Medo-Persians.  Abydenus,  in  his  singular 
account  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  last  hours  (given  on  p.  122  above),  repre 
sents  this  king  as  rapt  into  a  kind  of  prophetic  ecstasy,  and  in  this  state 
as  declaring  his  fearful  anticipations  of  the  Medo-Persian  conquest.  How 
came  such  a  coincidence  ? 

(/*)  In  4:  27  Nebuchadnezzar  is  introduced  as  saying :  "  Is  not  this 
great  Babylon  which  I  have  built  ?"  Recent  critics  allege  this  to  be  a 
mistake.  '  Ctesias,'  they  tell  us,  <  attributes  the  building  of  Babylon  to 
Semiramis  (Bahr  Ctes.  p.  397  seq.),  and  Herodotus  (1. 181  seq.)  ascribes 
it  to  Semiramis  and  Nitocris.'  —  My  answer  is,  that  Ctesias  follows  the 
Assyrian  tradition,  and  Herodotus  the  Persian.  But  Berosus  and  Aby 
denus  give  us  the  Babylonian  account ;  which  is,  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
added  much  to  the  old  town,  built  a  magnificent  royal  palace,  surrounded 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY.  441 

the  city  with  new  walls,  and  adorned  it  with  a  vast  number  of  buildings. 
Well  and  truly  might  he  say  that  he  had  built  it,  meaning  (as  he  plainly 
did)  its  magnificent  structures.  It  was  not  any  falsehood  in  his  declaration, 
which  was  visited  with  speedy  chastisement,  but  the  pride  and  vain-glory 
of  his  boasting  gave  offence  to  Heaven.  But  how  came  a  writer  of  the 
Maccabaean  period  to  know  of  all  this  matter  ?  No  Greek  writer  has  told 
anything  about  Nebuchadnezzar  or  his  doings.  To  Berosus  and  Abyde- 
nus.  a  writer  of  the  Maccabaean  age  could  hardly  have  had  access.  He 
rodotus  and  Ctesias  told  another  and  different  story.  Whence  then  did 
he  get  his  knowledge  of  the  part  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  acted,  in  the 
building  of  the  city  ?  And  yet  the  account  of  it  in  Daniel  accords  entirely 
with  both  Berosus  and  Abydenus.  Even  the  account  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
madness  is  virtually  adverted  to  in  these  writers  ;  see  above,  p.122  seq. 

(i)  In  Dan.  5:  10 — 12  is  introduced  a  personage  styled  the  queen, 
not  because  she  was  Belshazzar's  wife,  for  the  latter  was  already  in  the 
banqueting-room  (5:  3,  23),  but  probably  because  she  was  a  queen- 
mother.  Not  improbably  this  was  the  Nitocris  of  Herodotus  ;  and  Be 
rosus,  Diod.  Sic.  (II.  10),  and  Alex.  Polyhist.  (in  Chron.  Armen.),  all 
say  that  Nitocris  was  a  wife  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  If  so,  she  might  have 
had  much  to  do  with  ornamenting  the  city  both  before  and  after  Nebu 
chadnezzar's  death  ;  and  this  will  account  for  the  great  deference  paid  to 
her  by  Belshazzar,  as  related  in  5: 10 — 12.  It  is  one  of  those  accidental 
circumstances,  which  speaks  much  for  the  accordance  of  Daniel  with  the 
narrations  of  history.  It  is,  moreover,  a  circumstance,  about  which  a 
writer  of  the  Maccabaean  age  cannot  well  be  supposed  to  have  known 
anything. 

And  since  we  are  now  examining  ch.  v.,  it  may  be  proper  to  note  an 
other  circumstance.  We  have  seen,  that  at  Babylon  the  wives  and  concu 
bines  of  the  king  were  without  any  scruple  present  at  the  feast.  But  in 
Esth.  i.  we  have  an  account  of  the  positive  refusal  of  queen  Vashti,  to 
enter  the  guest-chamber  of  Ahasuerus.  In  other  words,  this  was,  and  is, 
against  the  general  custom  of  the  East.  How  came  a  writer  of  the  Mac 
cabaean  period,  to  know  this  distinction  between  the  customs  of  Babylon 
and  of  Persia  ?  The  author  of  the  Sept.  Version,  a  contemporary  of  this 
period,  knows  so  little  of  such  a  matter  that  he  even  leaves  out  the  pas 
sage  respecting  the  presence  of  women  at  the  feast.  Why  ?  Plainly 
because  he  thought  this  matter  would  be  deemed  incredible  by  his  readers. 
In  Xen.  Cyrop.  (V.  2.  28)  is  an  account  of  a  feast  of  Belshazzar,  where 
his  concubines  are  represented  as  being  present.  Not  only  so,  but  we 
have  elsewhere,  in  Greek  and  Roman  writers,  abundant  testimony  to 
usages  of  this  kind,  in  their  accounts  of  the  Babylonish  excesses.  But 


442  §  6.    GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

how  comes  it  about,  that  the  forger  of  the  book  of  Daniel  whose  familiar 
ity  with  those  writings  is  not  credible,  should  know  so  much  more  of 
Babylonish  customs  than  the  Sept.  translator  ? 

(/ )  Of  the  manner  in  which  Babylon  was  taken,  and  Belshazzar  slain, 
Daniel  has  not  given  us  any  minute  particulars.  But  he  has  told  us  that 
the  Medes  and  Persians  acquired  the  dominion  of  Babylon  (5:  28),  and 
that  Darius  the  Mede  succeeded  Belshazzar.  The  manner  in  which  he 
announces  the  slaying  of  Belshazzar  (5:  30),  shows  that  the  event  was 
altogether  sudden  and  unexpected.  Now  Herodotus  (in  I.  190),  and 
Xenophon  (Cyrop.  VII.),  have  told  us,  that  Cyrus  diverted  the  waters  of 
the  Euphrates,  and  marched  in  its  channel  into  the  heart  of  Babylon, 
and  took  the  city  in  a  single  night.  They  tell  us  that  the  Babylonians 
were  in  the  midst  of  feast-rioting  that  night,  and  were  unprepared  to  meet 
the  enemy  who  were  not  expected  in  the  city.  How  entirely  all  this 
harmonizes  with  Daniel,  is  quite  plain.  Gesenius  himself  acknowledges 
that  this  is  sehr  auffallend,  i.  e.  very  striking.  He  has  even  acknowledged, 
in  a  moment  of  more  than  usual  candor  and  concession,  that  Isa.  44:  27 
has  a  definite  reference  to  the  stratagem  of  Cyrus  in  taking  the  city.  In 
connection  with  a  prediction  concerning  Cyrus,  Jehovah  is  here  repre 
sented  as  " saying  to  the  deep,  Be  dry  ;  yea,  I  will  dry  up  thy  rivers" 
So  in  Jer.  50: 38,  "A  drought  is  upon  her  waters,  and  they  shall  be  dried 
up ;"  and  again  51:  36,  "  I  will  dry  up  her  sea  [river],  and  make  her 
springs  dry."  If  the  book  of  Daniel  is  to  be  cast  out  as  a  late  production, 
and  as  spurious,  because  it  seems  to  predict  the  sudden  capture  of  Baby 
lon  in  one  night,  by  the  Medes  and  Persians,  what  is  to  be  done  with 
these  passages  of  Isa.  and  Jer.  ?  Even  the  Neologists,  although  they 
maintain  a  later  composition  in  respect  to  those  parts  of  the  prophets 
which  have  just  been  cited,  still  do  not  venture  to  place  that  composition 
post  eventum.  If  not,  then  there  is  prediction  ;  and  this  too  of  a  strange 
event,  and  one  so  minute  and  specific,  that  guessing  is  out  of  question. 
If  then  Isa.  and  Jer.  predicted,  why  might  not  a  Daniel  also  predict  ? 

Another  circumstance  there  is  also,  in  which  all  three  of  these  prophets 
are  agreed.  According  to  Dan.  vi.,  Babylon  was  feasting  and  carousing, 
on  the  night  of  its  capture.  In  Isa.  21:  5  we  have  the  like  :  "Prepare 
the  table  .  .  .  Eat,  drink  ;  arise  ye  princes,  and  anoint  the  shield,"  i.  e. 
rise  up  from  your  feast-table,  and  make  ready  for  assault.  So  Jer.  51: 
39,  "  1  will  prepare  their  feasts,  and  I  will  make  them  drunken,  that  they 
may  rejoice,  and  sleep  a  perpetual  sleep,  and  not  wake,  saith  the  Lord/1 

If  now  a  writer  of  the  Maccabaean  period  had  undertaken  to  write  the 
story  of  the  capture  of  Babylon,  is  there  any  probability  that  he  would 
have  hit  upon  all  these  circumstances,  so  peculiar  and  so  concordant  ? 


§  6.  GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  443 

Conversant  with  the  native  Greek  historians  we  cannot  well  suppose  him 
to  have  been  ;  for  Greek  literature  was  regarded  as  reproachful  by  the 
Jews  of  that  period,  and  even  down  to  the  time  of  Josephus,  who  speaks 
strongly  on  this  subject. 

(k)  Daniel  5:  30  relates  the  violent  death  of  Belshazzar,  when  the  city 
was  taken.  In  this  particular  he  is  vouched  for  by  Xenophon,  Cyrop. 
VII.  5. 24,  30.  So  do  Isa.  21:  2—9.  14: 18 — 20.  Jer.  50:  29—35.  51: 57, 
declare  the  same  thing.  But  here  Berosus  and  Abydenus  dissent,  both 
of  them  representing  the  Babylonish  king  as  surrendering,  and  as  being 
treated  humanely  by  Cyrus.  How  comes  it,  if  the  forger  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  wrote  about  B.  C.  160,  that  he  did  not  consult  those  authors  on 
Babylonish  affairs  ?  Or  if,  (as  was  surely  the  fact  in  regard  to  most  Jew 
ish  writers  at  that  period),  he  had  no  familiarity  with  Greek  authors, 
then  where  did  he  obtain  his  views  about  the  death  of  Belshazzar?  For 
a  full  discussion  of  this  matter,  see  p.  147  seq.  above.  There  can  scarcely 
be  a  doubt,  that  the  account  of  Daniel  and  Xenophon  is  the  true  one. 

Xenophon  relates,  that  the  party  which  assailed  the  palace,  who  were 
led  on  by  Gobryas  and  Gadatas,  fell  upon  the  guards  who  were  carous 
ing  TiQog  qpcotf  Tiokv,  i.  e.  at  broad  daylight ;  *  Cyrop.  VII.  5.  27.  In 
other  words,  the  Persians  did  not  accomplish  their  onset  upon  the  palace, 
until  the  night  was  far  spent,  and  daylight  was  dawning.  How  now  are 
matters  presented  in  the  book  of  Daniel  ?  First,  there  is  the  feast,  (of 
course  in  the  evening)  ;  then  the  quaffing  of  wine  ;  then  the  hand-writing 
on  the  wall ;  then  the  assembling  of  all  the  Magi  to  interpret  it ;  then  the 
introduction  of  Daniel,  whose  interpretation  was  followed  by  his  being 
clothed  with  the  insignia  of  nobility,  and  being  proclaimed  the  third  ruler 
in  the  kingdom.  All  this  must  of  course  have  taken  up  most  of  the  night. 
Here  then  one  writer  confirms  and  illustrates  the  other.  A  Pseudo-Daniel 
would  not  have  risked  such  a  statement  as  the  true  one  has  made  ;  for  at 
first  view,  the  matter  seems  incredible,  and  it  is  charged  upon  the  book 
as  such.  But  Xenophon  has  freed  it  from  all  difficulties. 

Dan.  vi.  also  declares,  that  Belshazzar  was  a  son,  i.  e.  a  descendant  of 
Nebuchadnezzar.  An  appeal  is  made  to  Berosus  and  Megasthenes,  to 
show  that  this  was  not  true.  Yet  they  do  not  so  testify,  but  only  that 
Belshazzar  was  not  of  the  regular  line  of  heirs  of  the  throne.  He 
might  still  have  been  a  younger  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  a  son  of 


*  Singular,  that  in  a  critical  edition  and  commentary  on  Xenophon,  now  before  me, 
this  is  rendered  before  a  good  fire.  First,  the  Greek  words  do  not  allow  this.  Secondly, 
the  Babylonians  need  and  have  no  fires  for  warmth.  Thirdly,  Cyrus  would  not  have 
drained  the  Euphrates  and  marched  his  army  in  its  channel,  at  a  time  when  fires 
were  needed  for  warmth. 


444  §  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

Nebuchadnezzar's  daughter.  Now  Herodotus  agrees  with  Daniel, 
I.  188, 1.  74.  So  does  Xenophon.  And  as  the  other  authors  have  not 
in  reality  contradicted  this,  what  reason  is  there  for  refusing  to  believe  ? 
See  the  discussion  of  this  topic  at  large,  p.  144  seq. 

It  certainly  deserves  to  be  noted,  that  in  part  the  book  of  Daniel  is 
on  the  side  of  the  Greek  writers,  and  against  Berosus  and  Abydenus, 
where  the  representations  of  the  latter  may  be  justly  regarded  as  de 
signed  to  save  the  honor  and  credit  of  the  Babylonians ;  in  part  also  is 
Daniel  on  the  side  of  the  latter,  and  against  the  Greek  writers,  i.  e.  in 
eases  where  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  the  native  historians  to  be 
partial.  The  media  via  appears  in  this  case  to  be  hit  upon,  by  the 
simple  pursuit  of  historical  truth  in  the  narratives  of  the  book  before  us. 

Again,  in  Dan.  5:31,  we  have  an  assurance,  that  Darius  the  Mede 
assumed  the  throne  of  Babylon.  Here  Herodotus  and  Ctesias  are 
silent ;  but  here  Xenophon  fully  confirms  the  account  given  by  Daniel. 
Herodotus  himself  states  (I.  95),  that  there  were  two  other  modes  of 
telling  the  story  of  Cyrus,  besides  that  which  he  follows ;  and  that  of 
Xenophon  and  Daniel  is  probably  one  of  these.  This  is  confirmed  by 
Is.  13:  17,  where  the  Mede  is  declared  to  be  the  leading  nation  in 
destroying  Babylon,  and  the  same  is  also  said  in  Jer.  53  :  11,  28.  In 
Is.  21 :  2,  both  Media  and  Persia  are  mentioned.  The  silence  of 
Herodotus  and  Ctesias  can  not  disprove  a  matter  of  this  kind.  See  a 
full  discussion  of  the  topic,  p.  148  seq. 

Dan.  6:1  states,  that  Darius  set  over  his  kingdom  120  satraps. 
Xenophon  (Cyrop.  VIII.  6,  1  seq.)  relates,  that  satraps  were  set  over  all 
the  conquered  nations,  when  Cyrus  was  in  Babylon.  He  speaks  of  the 
appointments  as  made  by  Cyrus ;  and  doubtless  they  were,  since  he  was 
the  only  acting  governor  of  Babylon,  and  vice-gerent  of  the  king.  No 
less  true  is  it,  that  to  Darius  also,  as  supreme,  may  the  appointment  be 
attributed.  How  came  the  alleged  late  writer  of  Daniel  to  know  this  ? 
Xenophon  mentions  no  express  number.  The  book  of  Esther  (1 : 1) 
mentions  127  satraps.  Why  did  not  our  late  writer  copy  that  number, 
in  order  to  remove  suspicion  as  to  so  great  a  number  of  those  high 
officers  ?  And  how  is  it  that  120  in  Daniel  is  objected  to  as  an  incredi 
ble  number,  when  the  empire  was  actually  as  large  at  the  time  of  their 
appointment,  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Xerxes,  as  exhibited  in  Esth.  1:  1  ? 
The  Septuagint  translator  of  Daniel,  who  belonged  to  the  Maccabaean 
age,  did  not  venture  to  write  120,  as  it  seems,  but  127,  (so  in  Cod. 
Chis.),  thus  according  with  Esth.  1:  1,  and  leaning  upon  that  passage. 
He  seems  evidently  to  have  felt  that  the  story  of  so  many  satrapies 
must  be  supported  by  the  book  of  Esther,  in  order  to  be  believed.  He 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY.  445 

even,  in  his  ignorance  of  history,  translates  5:  31  thus :  "  And  Arta- 
xerxes,  the  Mede,  took  the  kingdom,"  probably  meaning  the  Persian 
Artaxerxes  Longimanus ! 

(I)  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  order  of  the  two  nations,  Medes 
and  Persians,  is  to  be  found  in  strict  accordance  with  the  idiom  of  the 
times.  Thus  in  6:  8, 12,  15,  we  have  the  Medes  and  Persians;  but  after 
Cyrus  comes  to  the  throne,  the  order  is  invariably  Persians  and  Medes. 
So  in  the  book  of  Esther,  the  law  of  the  Persians  and  Medes  shows  the 
same  change  of  usus  loquendi.  Would  a  Pseudo-Daniel  have  been 
likely  to  note  such  a  small  circumstance  ? 

It  is  also  noted  (Dan.  5:  31),  that  when  Darius  took  the  kingdom,  he 
was  threescore  and  two  years  old.  From  his  history,  his  reign,  and  his 
descent  from  Ahasuerus  (9:  1),  this  seems  altogether  probable.  But  no 
other  author  states  his  age.  The  fact  that  it  is  done  in  Daniel,  betokens 
a  familiarity  of  the  writer  with  the  minutiae  of  his  history.  So  does 
the  mention,  that  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  Daniel  took  into  most 
serious  consideration  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  respecting  the  70 
years'  exile  of  the  Hebrews. 

Thus  far,  then,  all  is  well.  All  seems  to  be  in  conformity  with  true 
history,  so  far  as  we  can  ascertain  it.  It  is  not  upon  one  or  two  particu 
lars,  that  we  would  lay  stress.  We  acknowledge  that  these  might  have 
been  traditionally  known,  and  accurately  reported.  It  is  on  the  tout  en 
semble  of  the  historical  matters  contained  in  the  book,  that  stress  is  to  be 
laid.  And  certainly  it  would  be  very  singular,  if  all  these  circumstances 
should  be  true  and  consistent,  and  yet  the  book  be  written  in  the  Mac- 
cabaean  period. 

How  is  it  with  the  best  historical  books  of  that  period  ?  The  first 
book  of  the  Maccabees  is,  in  the  main,  a  trustworthy  and  veracious 
book.  But  how  easy  it  is,  to  detect  errors  in  it,  both  in  respect  to 
geography  and  history !  In  7:  7  it  is  related  that  the  Romans  took 
Antiochus  the  Great  prisoner  alive.  But  this  never  happened.  They 
gained  a  great  victory  over  him,  and  took  away  many  of  his  provinces  ; 
but  he  himself  escaped  their  grasp.  In  7:  8  it  is  said,  that  they  took 
from  him  the  land  of  India,  Media,  and  Lydia.  But  neither  India  nor 
Media  ever  belonged  to  him.  The  efforts  to  show  that  Mysia  was 
originally  written  instead  of  Media,  are  of  course  but  mere  guesses ; 
and  if  true,  India  still  remains.  More  likely  is  it,  that  the  author  him 
self  put  Media  for  Mysia,  and  if  so,  then  this  does  not  mend  the  matter. 
In  7:  9,  10,  it  is  related,  that  *  the  Greeks  resolved  to  send  an  army  to 
Rome  and  destroy  it ;  but  that  the  Romans  learning  this,  sent  forth  an 
army,  who  slew  many,  carried  away  numerous  captives  of  their  women 

38 


446  §6.    GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

and  children,  laid  hold  of  their  strong  places,  and  took  possession  of 
their  lands,  and  reduced  the  people  of  Syria  to  servitude  unto  this  day' 
Now  nothing  of  all  this  ever  happened.  There  was  indeed  a  fracas 
between  the  Aetolians  and  the  Romans  at  that  period ;  but  it  was  soon 
made  up,  without  any  ravages  of  war,  or  any  servitude.  Further,  the 
author  in  7:  15  represents  the  Roman  Senate  as  consisting  of  320 
members,  continually  administering  the  government.  He  goes  on  to 
state  (v.  16),  that  they  choose  a  ruler  annually,  and  that  all  obey  this 
one.  Every  tyro  in  Roman  history  knows  how  unfounded  all  this 
is.  And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  very  first  sentence  in  the  book, 
which  tells  us,  that  Alexander  the  son  of  Philip  smote  Darius  king  of 
the  Persians  and  Medes,  and  then  reigned  in  his  stead  over  Greece  ? 
In  1:  6,  he  states  that  the  same  Alexander,  about  to  die,  made  a  parti 
tion  of  his  empire  among  his  chiefs  —  a  thing  that  took  place  some 
considerable  time  afterwards,  partly  by  mutual  agreement  and  partly  by 
force.  In  6:  1  he  makes  Elymais  a  town  instead  of  a  province. 

Such  are  some  of  the  specimens  of  this  writer's  errors  in  geography 
and  history.  That  he  was  a  grave,  enlightened,  and  veracious  writer, 
in  the  main,  is  conceded  by  all.  But  if  in  things  so  plain,  and  transac 
tions  so  recent,  he  commits  so  many  errors  as  have  been  specified,  what 
would  he  have  done,  if  the  scene  had  been  shifted  from  near  countries 
to  the  remote  places  where  the  book  of  Daniel  finds  its  circle  of 
action  ? 

As  to  the  second  book  of  the  Maccabees,  it  is  so  notorious  for  errors 
and  mistakes,  that  very  little  credit  has  been  attached  to  it,  on  the  part 
of  intelligent  critics.  It  is  not  once  to  be  named,  in  comparison  with 
the  book  of  Daniel.  It  must  have  been  written,  when  a  knowledge  of 
historical  events  was  confused,  and  at  a  very  low  ebb.  The  book  of 
Tobit,  which  originated  in  or  near  the  Maccabaean  period,  exhibits  not 
only  a  romantic  and  as  it  were  fairy  tale,  but  contains  historical  and 
geographical  difficulties  incapable  of  solution ;  also  physical  phenomena 
are  brought  to  view,  which  are  incredible.  It  is  needless  to  specificate 
them  here.  De  Wette's  Einleit.  presents  them,  §  309. 

We  have  dwelt  hitherto,  under  our  5th  head,  mainly  on  things  of  a 
historical  nature,  i.  e.  events  and  occurrences.  Let  us  now  examine  a 
number  of  things  that  are  of  a  miscellaneous  nature,  which  it  would  be 
somewhat  difficult  if  not  useless  to  classify  throughout,  but  most  of 
which  are  connected  with  manners,  customs,  demeanor,  etc. 

(m)  Daniel  makes  no  mention  in  his  book  of  prostration  before  the 
king,  in  addressing  him.  0  King,  live  forever  !  was  the  usual  greeting. 
Arrian  (iv.)  testifies,  that  the  story  in  the  East  was,  that  Cyrus  was  the 


§  6.    GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY.          .  447 

first  before  whom  prostration  was  practised.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  this 
came  about.  With  the  Persians,  the  king  was  regarded  as  the  represen 
tative  of  Ormusd,  and  therefore  entitled  to  adoration.  Nebuchadnez 
zar  was  high  enough  in  claims  to  submission  and  honor ;  but  not  a  word 
of  exacting  adoration  from  those  who  addressed  him.  How  could  a 
Pseudo-Daniel  know  of  this  nice  distinction,  when  all  the  oriental  sove 
reigns  of  whom  he  had  any  knowledge  had,  at  least  for  four  centuries, 
exacted  prostration  from  all  who  approached  them  ? 

(n)  In  mere  prose  (Dan.  1:  2),  Babylon  is  called  by  the  old  name  Ski- 
nar  (Gen.  11:  2,  14:  1)  ;  and  as  an  old  name,  it  is  poetically  used  once 
by  Isaiah  (11:  11),  and  once  by  Zechariah  (5:  11).  Now  Shinar  was 
the  vernacular  name  of  what  foreigners  call  Babylonia ;  and  it  was 
easy  and  natural  for  Daniel  to  call  it  so.  But  how  or  why  came  a 
Pseudo-Daniel  to  such  a  use  of  the  word  ?  Babylon  he  would  naturally 
and  almost  with  certainty  call  it. 

(a)  Dan.  1:  5  tells  us,  that  the  Hebrew  lads  were  to  be  fed  from  the 
king's  table.  Such  a  custom,  even  in  respect  to  royal  prisoners,  Jer. 
52:  33,  34,  discloses.  Among  the  Persians  this  was  notorious,  and  ex 
tended  to  the  whole  corps  d'elites  of  the  soldiery.  Ctesias  tells  us,  that 
the  king  of  Persia  daily  fed  15,000  men.  How  came  the  late  writer  of 
Daniel  to  be  acquainted  with  a  minute  circumstance  of  the  nature  of  that 
before  us  ? 

(p)  Daniel  and  his  companions  receive  Chaldee  names,  some  of  which 
are  compounded  of  the  names  of  their  false  gods.  In  2  Kings  24:  17, 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  reported  to  have  changed  the  name  of  king  Matta- 
niah  into  Zedekiah.  How  did  the  late  forger  of  the  book  come  by  the 
notion  of  assigning  to  his  Hebrew  heroes  the  names  of  idol-gods  ?  The 
rigorous  attachment  to  all  that  was  Jewish,  and  the  hearty  hatred  of 
heathenism  by  all  the  pious  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  makes  it  diffi 
cult  to  account  for  his  course. 

(q}  In  Dan.  2:  1,  the  Babylonish  mode  of  reckoning  time  is  introduced, 
viz.  the  second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Where  else,  unless  in  Ezek. 
1:  1,  is  this  employed?  How  came  the  late  interpolator  of  the  sacred 
books  to  betake  himself  to  this  mode  of  reckoning ;  and  especially  since 
it  apparently  contradicts  1:  1,  5,  18  ?  See  the  solution  of  the  difficulty, 
in  Exc.  I.  p.  19  seq. 

(r)  In  Dan.  2:  5,  3:  29,  one  part  of  the  threatened  punishment  is,  that 
the  houses  of  the  transgressors  should  be  turned  into  a  dung-hill,  or 
rather  a  morass-heap.  Here  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  Baby 
lonish  mode  of  building  is  developed.  The  houses  were  mostly  con 
structed  of  sun-baked  bricks,  or  with  those  slightly  burned ;  and  when  once 


448  .     §  6.     GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

demolished,  the  rain  and  dew  would  soon  dissolve  the  whole  mass,  and 
make  them  sink  down,  in  that  wet  land  near  the  river,  into  a  miry  place 
of  clay,  whenever  the  weather  was  wet. 

(s)  In  Dan.  3:  1,  the  plain  of  Dura  is  mentioned ;  a  name  found  no 
where  else,  yet  mentioned  here  as  a  place  familiar  to  the  original  readers 
of  the  book,  inasmuch  as  no  explanation  is  added.  Whence  did  the 
Pseudo-Daniel  derive  this  name  ? 

(t)  In  Dan.  2:  5  and  3:  6,  we  find  the  punishment  of  hewing  to  pieces 
and  burning  in  ovens  mentioned.  Testimony  to  such  modes  of  punish 
ment  may  be  found  in  Ezek.  16:  40.  23:  25  and  Jer.  29:  22.  But  such 
a  mode  of  punishment  could  not  exist  among  the  Persians,  who  were 
fire-worshippers  ;  and  accordingly  in  chap.  vi.  we  find  casting  into  a  den 
of  lions  as  substituted  for  it. 

(M)  In  Dan.  iii.  we  find  not  only  a  huge  idol  (in  keeping  with  the 
Babylonish  taste),  but  also  a  great  variety  of  musical  instruments  em 
ployed  at  the  dedication  of  it.  Quintus  Curtius  has  told  us,  that  when 
Alexander  the  Great  entered  Babylon,  '  there  were  in  the  procession 
singing  Magi  .  .  .  and  artists  playing  on  stringed  instruments  of  a  pecu 
liar  kind,  accustomed  to  chant  the  praises  of  the  king/  (v.  3.) 

(v)  According  to  Herod.  I.  195,  the  Babylonish  costume  consisted  of 
three  parts,  first  the  wide  and  long  pantaloons  for  the  lower  part  of  the 
person ;  secondly,  a  woollen  shirt ;  and  thirdly,  a  large  mantle  with  a 
girdle  around  it.  On  the  cylinder  rolls  found  at  Babylon,  Munter  (Re- 
lig.  d.  Bab.  s.  96)  discovered  the  same  costume.  In  Dan.  3:  21,  the 
same  three  leading  and  principal  articles  of  dress  are  particularized. 
Other  parts  of  clothing  are  merely  referred  to,  but  not  specificated ;  but 
these  garments  being  large  and  loose,  and  made  of  delicate  material,  are 
mentioned  in  order  to  show  how  powerless  the  furnace  was,  since  they 
were  not  even  singed.  How  did  a  Pseudo-Daniel  obtain  such  particulars 
as  these  ? 

(to)  Dan.  6:  16  shows,  that  the  regal  token  of  honor  bestowed,  was  a 
collet  or  golden  chain  put  around  the  neck.  Brissonius,  in  his  work  on 
the  Persian  dominion,  has  shown  the  same  custom  among  the  Persian 
kings,  who,  not  improbably,  borrowed  it  from  the  Babylonians. 

(x)  In  Dan.  6:  8,  "  the  laws  of  the  Medes  which  change  not"  are  men 
tioned.  In  Esth.  1:  19  and  8:  8,  we  have  repeated  mention  of  this  same 
peculiar  custom.  The  reason  of  this  probably  was,  that  the  king  was 
regarded  as  the  impersonation  of  Ormusd,  and  therefore  as  infallible. 

(y)  In  Dan.  7:  9,  we  have  a  description  of  the  divine  throne  as  placed 
upon  movable  wheels.  The  same  we  find  in  Ezekiel  i.  and  x. ;  which 
renders  it  quite  probable,  that  the  Babylonian  throne  was  constructed  in 


§  6.   GENUINENESS  AND   AUTHENTICITY.  449 

this  way,  so  that  the  monarch  might  move  in  processions,  with  all  the 
insignia  of  royalty  about  him. 

(z)  It  deserves  special  remark,  that  Daniel  has  given  individual  classifi 
cations  of  priests  and  civilians,  such  as  are  nowhere  else  given  in  Scripture, 
and  the  knowledge  of  which  must  have  been  acquired  from  intimate  ac 
quaintance  with  the  state  of  things  in  Babylon.  In  Dan.  2:  2, 10, 27,  the 
various  classes  of  diviners  and  literati  are  named.  In  Dan.  3:  2, 3,  the  differ 
ent  classes  of  magistrates,  civilians,  and  rulers,  are  specifically  named.  On 
this  whole  subject,  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  Exc.  III.  on  the  Chaldees,  p. 
34  seq.  above.  Whence  a  Maccabaean  writer  could  have  derived  such 
knowledge,  it  would  be  difficult  to  say.  It  is  one  of  those  circumstances 
which  could  not  well  be  feigned.  Several  of  the  names  occur  nowhere 
else  in  the  Heb.  Bible,  and  some  of  them  are  evidently  derivates  of  the 
Parsi  or  Median  language ;  e.  g.  "JWO  in  6:  3,  a  name  unknown  in  the 
Semitic.  On  the  other  hand,  several  of  them  are  exclusively  Chaldean ; 
e.  g.  Dan.  3:  3,  J^firnK ,  fiOFiBf) ,  of  which  no  profane  writer  has  given 
the  least  hint.  How  came  the  Pseudo-Daniel  to  a  knowledge  of  such 
officers  ? 

Finally,  the  passages  in  3:  10,  20,  in  respect  to  the  WATCHERS,  is 
most  decisive  proof  of  an  intimate  acquaintance  of  the  writer  with  the 
Parsi  or  Zoroastrian  system  of  religion.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  the 
Remarks  on  p.  103,  he  will  see  how  well  grounded  this  statement  is. 
According  to  that  system,  the  planets  were  inhabited  by  Amshaspands, 
and  were  guardians  and  watchers  placed  over  the  universe  by  Ormusd, 
and  running  to  and  fro  to  discharge  the  duty  of  their  office.  The  watch 
ers  were  included  among  the  Dii  Minores  of  the  Parsis,  and  Nebuchad 
nezzar  speaks  of  them  as  celestial  beings,  announcing  to  him  the  decrees 
of  heaven.  This  view,  beyond  all  doubt,  belonged  to  and  constituted  a 
part  of  the  Chaldaic  religion  ;  and  if  not  indigenous,  it  came  into  Baby 
lonia  with  the  northern  Chaldee  invaders  and  their  Magi.  How  came 
the  Pseudo-Daniel  by  knowledge  such  as  this  imports  ? 

It  were  easy  to  add  many  more  minute  circumstances  to  show  the 
historical  agreement  of  the  book  of  Daniel  with  the  history  of  those 
times,  and  specially  its  accordance  with  the  manners,  customs,  civil  and 
hieratical  officers  and  arrangements,  etc.,  of  the  Babylonish  capital.  But 
I  deem  it  superfluous.  All  the  great  oriental  antiquarians  —  such  men 
as  Heeren,  Miinter,  Schlosser,  Herder  and  others  —  concede  an  intimate 
knowledge  of  oriental  objects  and  matters  to  the  writer  of  Daniel.  Hee 
ren  and  Miinter  and  Herder  do  this  very  heartily  and  fully ;  and  even 
Schlosser,  cold  and  skeptical  as  he  was  in  respect  to  revelation  and 
everything  miraculous,  does  not  hesitate  to  speak  thus :  "  Truly  we  find 

38* 


4:50  §  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

in  the  Aramaean  part  of  the  book  [2:  4 — vii.],  matter  of  great  importance 
for  ancient  history.  In  Daniel,  we  believe  that  the  only  remains  of  the 
modes  of  thinking  and  the  customs  of  the  Babylonish  period,  together 
with  the  remains  of  their  ancient  language,  are  preserved ;  while  the 
Greeks  have  given  us  only  a  Grecian  view,  or  at  most,  (like  that  of 
Berosus),  only  a  Babylonish  view  transformed  by  the  Greek  one.  The 
whole  way  and  manner  of  interpreting  signs  and  dreams,  the  organization 
of  the  priestly  caste,  and  the  fashion  of  living  among  the  later  Babylonish 
monarchs,  and  also  some  hints  respecting  the  Medo-Persian  period,  one 
finds  in  these  remains,"  (Welt-Geschichte).  A  noble  concession  for  a 
cold  skeptical  historian ;  yet,  as  all  acknowledge,  he  was  a  man  of  dis 
tinguished  talent  and  of  extensive  research.  An  expert  in  oriental 
history,  manners,  customs,  arts,  governments,  geography,  and  the  like, 
cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  apparent  ease  of  the  writer  of  Daniel  in 
the  midst  of  such  matters,  and  the  entire  unconcern  he  shows  about  being 
detected  as  lacking  in  exact  knowledge.  Truly  it  is  something,  to  write 
such  a  book  in  such  a  way  —  something,  moreover,  that  transcends  the 
ability  of  a  forger  in  the  Maccabaean  day.  There  were  no  sources 
whence  he  could  derive  all  the  knowledge  displayed  in  this  work.  It 
requires  at  least  a  greater  stretch  of  the  credulous  to  believe  in  such  a 
Pseudo-Daniel,  than  it  does  to  believe  in  the  real  one. 

(6)  The  prophet  Daniel  had  contemporaries,  who  were  companions  in 
office,  and  who,  if  not  personally  acquainted  with  him,  at  least  were 
living  in  a  condition  which  was  like  his  own,  some  peculiarities  of  a 
court-life  excepted.  Ezekiel  was  probably  older  than  he  ;  Zechariah  and 
Haggai  younger.  Malachi,  also,  was  a  century  younger ;  but  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  born  or  to  have  lived  abroad ;  and  therefore  he 
cannot  be  brought  fairly  into  the  comparison.  But  Ezekiel  and  Zecha 
riah  remain ;  and  it  becomes  a  matter  of  much  importance  to  inquire 
whether  the  book  of  Daniel  bears  any  striking  resemblance  to  the  pro 
ductions  of  the  two  last-named  prophets.  It  is  in  this  way,  that  we 
undertake  to  judge  of  the  claims  of  an  author  to  any  particular  age. 
We  compare  him  with  other  like  men  of  that  age,  and  see  whether  he 
has  the  stamp  of  the  period  in  question  impressed  upon  him.  If  so,  it  is 
strong  circumstantial  testimony  in  favor  of  the  claims  which  are  made 
for  the  age  and  genuineness  of  his  production. 

It  is  proper  to  remark,  here,  that  the  book  of  Haggai,  also  a  prophet 
of  the  exile-period,  is  a  very  short  one,  and  has  only  one  specific  object 
in  view.  This  is  to  urge  on  the  lagging  work  of  temple-building.  Of 
course  the  book  is  paraenetic  or  hortatory.  One  or  two  short  sentences 
only  are  predictive,  viz.  2:  6 — 9,  21 — 23.  We  may  therefore  lay  this 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  451 

book  out  of  our  present  account,  and  apply  ourselves  to  a  summary  com 
parison  of  the  others  with  the  book  of  Daniel. 

It  was  characteristic  of  the  Chaldees,  to  use  symbolical  representations 
beyond  any  other  nation  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  But  it  was 
common  also  for  the  Medes  and  Persians  to  make  an  abundant  use 
of  the  like  imagery  or  pictorial  representations.  All  the  monuments  of 
Middle  Asia,  on  the  great  Mesopotamian  plain,  those  heretofore  discovered, 
and  those  recently  disinterred,  are  filled  with  symbols  of  various  kinds, 
and  specially  of  beasts  that  are  of  gigantic  and  grotesque  forms.  In  no 
part  of  the  world  has  the  taste  for  the  huge  and  the  grotesque  been  car 
ried  so  far.  In  no  part,  has  the  attachment  to  symbol  developed  itself 
in  so  many  and  such  singular  ways. 

It  is  striking  to  note,  how  much  a  familiar  view  of  those  persons  and 
things  which  surrounded  Ezekiel,  Zechariah,  and  Daniel,  impressed 
itself  on  their  minds  in  the  way  of  shaping  their  taste,  and  gave  a  color 
ing  to  their  style.  In  Ezekiel,  the  king  of  Babylon  is  a  huge  eagle,  who 
crops  off  the  top  branches  of  the  cedars  in  Lebanon,  and  carries  them  to 
Babylon  ;  and  the  king  of  Egypt  is  symbolized  in  the  same  way,  mutatis 
mutandis,  chap.  xvii.  In  chap.  xix.  Judah  is  presented  under  the  image 
of  a  lioness.  In  chap,  xxxii.,  the  king  of  Egypt  is  likened  to  a  crocodile 
of  the  Nile.  In  xxxi.,  the  Assyrian,  who  had  been  prostrated,  is  sym 
bolized  as  the  loftiest  of  the  trees  in  Lebanon  in  the  day  of  his  exaltation. 
All  the  fowls  of  the  air  built  their  nests  in  its  boughs ;  under  its  branches 
did  the  beasts  find  repose ;  and  under  its  shadow  all  the  great  nations  of 
the  earth  dwelt,  31:  6,  comp.  Dan.  4:  12,  21.  Even  Schlosser  (Welt- 
Geschichte,  s.  240)  fully  admits  the  oriental  costume  of  Ezekiel :  "  In 
his  compositions,  a  Chaldaeo-Babylonian  tone  is  so  predominant,  that  he 
speaks  out  the  character  of  his  age  in  a  striking  manner.  This  symboli 
cal  style,  that  thunder-chariot,  those  terrible  horses  of  thunder  which 
draw  it,  that  sapphire-throne,  that  covering  arch  decked  with  the  colors 
of  the  rainbow,  belong  to  the  Babylonish  court  in  a  Babylonish  temple  ; 
and  symbolism  is  as  much  more  predominant  in  Ezekiel,  than  in  Isaiah, 
as  the  poetry  of  the  latter  transcends  that  of  the  former."  This  is  a 
striking  picture  ;  but  not  more  striking  than  true. 

How  stands  the  matter,  in  respect  to  Zechariah  ?  I  include  in  the 
work  of  Zechariah,  the  returned  exile,  only  the  first  eight  chapters  of  the 
book  that  bears  his  name.  I  do  so,  because  I  deem  the  arguments  for 
the  composition  of  the  last  six  chapters  by  an  older  prophet,  (probably  of 
the  same  name),  to  be  on  the  whole  unanswerable.  Even  our  common 
authorized  English  version  has  taken  such  a  ground,  dating  the  first 
eight  chapters  520—518  B.  C.,  and  the  last  six  587  B.  C.  It  is  indeed  /* 


452  §  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

possible,  on  such  a  ground,  that  the  same  man  may  have  written  both 
parts  of  the  book ;  but  the  discrepancy  of  style  and  matter  is  too  great 
to  admit  of  any  considerable  probability. 

How  is  it,  then,  with  the  prophet  Zechariah  who  came  out  of  exile  ? 
Ezra  5:  1.  That  renowned  antiquarian,  bishop  Miinter,  has  given  his 
opinion  thus  :  "  The  prophet  Zechariah  has  shown,  in  his  visions,  a  color 
ing  altogether  foreign  to  the  Jews,  and  which  could  take  its  origin  only 
in  Chaldea.  He  speaks  of  a  stone  with  seven  eyes  (3:  9)  ;  of  a  golden 
lamp  with  seven  branch-lights,  symbols  of  the  seven  eyes  of  Jehovah 
which  look  through  the  whole  earth  (4:  2,  10)  ;  of  four  chariots,  spirits 
of  heaven,  which  come  from  the  four  quarters  of  the  world,  and  take 
their  station  before  the  Most  High,"  (Relig.  d.  Bab.  s.  89).  But  this  is 
far  from  all.  In  chap,  i.,  we  have  four  horses  of  different  colors,  emblems 
of  the  angelic  watch-guard  placed  over  Judea.  An  angel  appears  with 
a  measuring  line  to  mete  out  Jerusalem,  chap.  ii.  Joshua  the  high  priest, 
in  filthy  garments,  with  Satan  at  his  right  hand,  next  appears  in  vision ; 
and  the  significance  of  the  vision  is  explained  by  an  angel  interpreter, 
chap.  iii.  The  .two  olive-trees  that  supply  the  lamp  mentioned  above 
with  oil,  are  described  in  chap.  iv.  In  chap,  v.,  a  flying  roll  of  thirty 
feet  in  length  and  half  as  much  in  breadth,  is  seen  moving  through  the 
air,  written  with  the  doom  of  the  wicked  on  both  sides,  and  on  it  is  the 
personification  of  wickedness,  thrust  into  an  ephah,  and  covered  with  a 
sheet  f>f  lead  ;  and  all  are  borne  to  the  land  of  Shinar  (comp.  Dan.  1:  2), 
by  two  women  with  the  wings  of  a  stork.  Then  comes  the  vision  of 
the  chariots,  as  stated  by  Miinter  in  the  passage  above  quoted. 

Who  now  that  has  read  these  books  and  compared  them  with  that  of 
Daniel,  can  fail  to  discern  the  likeness  of  style,  manner,  and  imagery  ? 
When  I  say  this,  I  would  limit  my  remark  to  the  general  features  of 
style,  and  the  general  circle  of  thought  and  representation.  Where  else, 
in  all  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  is  there  anything  that  compares  with  these 
prophets,  either  in  the  frequency  of  symbols,  or  in  the  kinds  of  them  ? 
Compare  the  Theophany  in  Isa.  vi.  with  that  in  Ezek.  i.  and  Dan.  vii. 
The  difference  is  very  striking.  Then  compare  the  monsters  in  Dan. 
vii.  viii.  with  those  in  Ezek.,  and  the  frequency  with  which  these  occur. 
The  like  are  now  found  on  the  Babylonish  cylinders  and  tapestry.  Even 
the  strange  beast  in  Dan.  7:  5,  of  which  it  is  said  n^pn  "in  "laiab ,  (a 
phrase  that  has  nonplussed  all  commentators  until  Decently,  and  which 
has  been  very  diversely  and  wildly  explained),  has  now  been  presented 
to  our  view  among  the  ruins  of  Persepolis  and  elsewhere,  in  the  very 
attitude  described  by  the  prophet,  and  is  one  of  the  symbols  of  the  Per 
sian  dynasty,  as  Daniel  describes  it  in  7:  5.  (See  the  Comm.  above  on 
this  passage.) 


§  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  453 

How  comes  it,  now,  that  these  three  writers  of  the  exile-period,  should 
resemble  each  other  so  strikingly  in  general  taste  and  manner  and  circle 
of  imagery,  and  in  the  frequency  of  it  ?  How  comes  it  that  all  of  them 
are  so  manifestly  out  of  the  Palestine  circle  of  action  or  description  ? 
One  feels  himself  abroad,  the  moment  he  begins  to  read  them.  They 
are  indeed  animated  by  the  same  spirit ;  but  they  are  far  from  wearing 
the  same  costume.  May  not  one  almost  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  im 
ages  of  things  seen  in  a  dream  or  trance-vision  are  copies  in  the  main  of 
those  seen  in  a  waking  state,  and  only  formed  into  new  combinations,  or 
placed  in  new  positions  ?  It  would  seem,  now,  that  all  these  contempora 
ries  of  the  exile-period  had  seen  the  originals  of  their  symbols  on  the 
Babylonish  walls  and  houses  and  temples.  The  grotesque,  the  gigantic, 
everywhere  met  their  eyes.  Even  their  descriptions  partake  of  the  usual 
hyperbole  of  the  remoter  East.  '  All  men,  all  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and 
the  fowls  of  the  air,  are  subject  to  king  Nebuchadnezzar,'  Dan.  2:  38.  So 
1  the  tree  in  the  midst  of  the  earth,  whose  height  reached  to  heaven,  and 
was  seen  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  —  this  tree  nourished  all  flesh,  and  af 
forded  shelter  for  all  birds  and  beasts  and  men,'  Dan.  4:  7  seq.  Just  such 
a  tree  is  presented  to  view  as  an  image  of  the  Assyrian  king,  in  Ezek.  31: 
3 — 8.  So  much  are  the  two  passages  alike,  that  the  writer  of  Daniel 
has  been  accused,  by  Lengerke,  of  copying  from  Ezekiel.  If  either  is  a 
copy  of  the  other,  then  why  are  we  not  at  liberty  to  guess  that  Ezekiel 
copied  from  Daniel  ?  But  a  close  and  minute  attention  to  the  diction 
and  style  of  each,  shows  manifestly  that  neither  is  copied  from  the  other. 
Both  merely  drew  from  a  source  of  imagery  familiar  to  both.  Other 
examples,  moreover,  of  hyperbole  are  frequent  in  both  writers,  and  are 
found  on  all  sides.  They  are  even  more  frequent  in  Ezekiel,  than  in 
any  other  of  the  Hebrew  writers.  Partaking  of  this  same  character  are 
such  passages  in  Daniel,  as  speak  of  the  furnace  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as 
being  heated  seven  times  hotter  than  was  customary  (3: 19)  ;  and  border 
ing  almost  on  the  grotesque  is  the  description  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  mania : 
'  He  eats  grass  like  the  ox ;  the  hair  of  his  body  becomes  like  eagles' 
feathers ;  and  his  nails  like  the  claws  of  birds,'  4:  33. 

Like  Ezekiel,  Daniel  sees  visions  on  the  margin  of  great  rivers.  Eze 
kiel  was  on  the  Chebar  (Chaboras),  1:  1,  3.  3:  15,  23.  10:  15,  20,  22. 
43:  3.  Daniel  was,  in  like  manner,  on  the  borders  of  a  great  sea  (river) 
7:  2  ;  and  again  on  the  banks  of  the  Ulai,  8: 2, 16 ;  and  lastly  on  the  great 
Hiddekel  (the  Tigris),  10:  4.  In  a  country  abounding  in  such  large  rivers, 
it  would  seem  that  Daniel  and  Ezekiel  lived ;  and  hence  the  easy  and 
natural  reference  to  them.  But  we  find  nothing  of  the  like  kind  in  the 
Palestine  prophets. 


454  §6.    GENUINENESS  AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  the  writers  of  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  Zechariah, 
were  of  like  taste,  like  age,  and  like  country.  Their  taste,  either  formed 
in  Mesopotamia  as  in  the  case  of  Daniel,  or  conformed  to  it  by  long  resi 
dence  there  as  in  the  case  of  Ezekiel  and  perhaps  of  Zechariah,  has 
developed  itself  in  a  similar  style  and  circle  of  imagery  in  all  of  them. 
Individually  distinct  indeed  they  are ;  fully  enough  to  show  their  inde 
pendence  on  each  other.  Yet  there  is  a  general  Mesopotamian,  Chaldean 
hue  diffused  over  all  their  works ;  and  they  stand  out  quite  distinctly,  as 
to  manner,  from  all  the  Palestine  writers.  No  one  familiar  with  the  origi 
nal  Scriptures,  and  who  is  well  versed  in  critical  matters,  can  help  the 
distinct  feeling,  that  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  and  Zechariah,  are  writers  sui  gene 
ris  in  comparison  with  the  Palestine  authors,  and  yet  altogether  of  a 
kindred  spirit  among  themselves.  Where,  in  all  the  Hebrew  prophets, 
is  there  anything  like  Ezek.  i.  x.  xl — xlviii,  Dan.  vii — xii,  and  Zech. 
i— vi? 

How  came  it,  now,  that  a  pseudo-Daniel  should  lean  on  Ezekiel  and 
Zechariah,  when  there  were  other  late  prophets  whom  he  might  have 
imitated  without  suspicion,  i.  e.  Jeremiah,  Haggai,  and  Malachi  ?  How 
could  a  native  of  Palestine,  in  the  Maccabaean  period,  even  if  he  travel 
led  to  Babylon  (then  in  a  ruinous  condition),  acquire  such  an  intimate 
knowledge  of  Babylonish  manners  and  customs  and  objects  ;  since  these 
had  long  been  done  away  under  the  Persian  and  Grecian  dynasties  ? 
And  even  if  he  could  in  any  way  have  become  acquainted  with  these 
things,  how  could  it  have  had  influence  enough  to  give  to  his  style  a  cos 
tume  so  Babylonish  ? 

(7)  There  are  traits  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  which  are  connected  with 
his  life  at  court,  and  his  management  of  state  affairs,  which  are  altogether 
peculiar  to  him  and  congruous  with  his  place  and  character,  but  which 
belong  to  no  other  Hebrew  writer. 

If  the  word  had  not  been  so  much  abused,  I  should  characterize  what 
I  aim  at,  by  calling  it  cosmopolitism.  With  all  the  deep  and  unaffected 
reverence  which  Daniel  cherishes  for  the  God  of  the  Hebrews  and  the 
laws  of  Moses ;  with  all  his  ardent  and  dauntless  piety  and  exemplary 
humility ;  there  is  a  freedom  in  his  book  from  Jewish  rigorism,  which 
is  very  remarkable.  Where  is  the  passage  which  exalts  and  cries  up  the 
Jews,  at  the  expense  and  degradation  of  the  heathen  ?  And  yet,  where 
is  there  one  word  or  action,  that  shows  approbation  of  heathenism,  or  in 
difference  to  it  ?  Jehovah  God  is  GOD  ALONE  ;  all  idols  are  nothing 
and  vanity.  His  name,  his  servants,  the  vessels  even  of  his  temple,  can 
not  be  profaned  and  abused,  without  a  signal  and  awful  retribution ; 
ch.  v.  Yet  Daniel  forms  no  conspiracies  to  deliver  the  Jews  from  their 


§  6.    GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY.  455 

conqueror's  hand.  He  never  sacrifices  his  allegiance  or  fidelity  to  Nebu 
chadnezzar.  He  keeps  his  place  as  prime  minister  nearly  forty  years,  in 
spite  of  all  the  native  nobles  and  Magi  of  the  realm.  Indeed,  he  never,  as 
it  would  seem,  gave  offence  to  them,  or  had  a  quarrel  with  them.  And 
how  could  he  be  head  Magian  all  this  time,  and  yet  escape  the  infectious 
influence  of  Parsism,  and  keep  himself  clear  from  its  polytheistic  rites  ? 
That  he  did,  cannot  be  doubted,  if  his  book  is  to  be  believed.  Truly  he 
must  have  been  a  magnanimous,  a  discreet,  a  liberal,  and  a  wary  courtier 
to  accomplish  all  this !  And  such  is  his  bearing  in  his  whole  history. 
Look  at  him,  when  a  mere  youth,  before  Nebuchadnezzar  and  his  court, 
interpreting  the  dreams  of  the  haughty  and  powerful  monarch.  See  him 
before  Belshazzar  and  his  thousand  lords,  announcing  the  judgments  of 
Heaven,  when  that  awful  invisible  hand  inscribed  the  doom  of  that  tyrant 
and  his  capital  on  the  wall  before  his  eyes  !  Is  this  an  ordinary  man  ? 
In  truth  I  know  not  where  to  look  for  examples  of  such  a  kind.  A  most 
sagacious,  independent,  enlightened  and  fearless  man  he  must  have  been, 
to  have  filled  such  a  place,  so  long,  and  with  so  much  approbation. 

We  should  also  take  into  view  the  nature  and  general  course  of  his 
prophetic  annunciations.  What  are  they  ?  Not  denunciation  against  Tyre, 
or  Sidon,  or  Syria,  or  Philistia,  or  Moab,  or  Egypt.  No,  they  are  views 
of  dynasties  ;  of  powers  that  influence  the  destiny  of  the  world ;  of  the 
four  great  empires  which  all  history  celebrates.  Who  does  not  see  the 
statesman  here,  whose  elevated  thoughts  and  conceptions  dwell  on  the 
mighty  changes  among  the  mass  of  nations  ?  The  circle  in  which  he 
moves,  and  the  thoughts  which  are  inspired  by  his  position,  are  all 
plainly  stamped  upon  the  productions  of  his  pen. 

There  are  some  other  traits  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  which  seem  to  re 
sult  from  the  literary  character  and  habits  (if  I  may  so  speak)  of  the 
writer.  How  comes  it,  that  everywhere  so  much  attention  is  paid  to  chro 
nology  ?  A  careful  designation  of  dates  accompanies  all  his  prophecies, 
and  for  the  most  part  his  historical  narrations.  This  is  frequent  in  Eze- 
kiel,  and  found  more  than  once  in  Zechariah  ;  but  it  is  not  so  uniform  as 
in  Daniel.  Every  one  who  knows  the  history  of  the  Magi,  knows  that 
astronomy  and  the  observation  of  times  and  periods  were  their  leading 
occupation.  A  familiarity  with  such  reckonings  seems  to  have  formed 
the  taste  of  Daniel  respecting  them.  We  might  even  venture  to  suggest 
it  as  probable,  that  those  occult  sciences  had  an  influence  on  the  intro 
duction  of  so  many  new  and  peculiar  periods  in  his  book.  Take  for  ex 
ample,  "  the  time,  times,  and  half  a  time ;"  the  mysterious  seventy  weeks ; 
and  then  the  seven  weeks,  the  sixty-two  weeks,  and  the  one  week.  It  is 
indeed  no  new  thing,  that  definite  periods  should  appear  in  his  prophecy ; 


456  §  6.   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHENTICITY. 

for  other  prophets  furnish  us  with  examples  of  the  like  kind.  What 
is  new,  however,  or  at  least  peculiar,  is  the  frequency  of  this  definite- 
ness,  and  the  peculiar  costume  with  which  some  of  the  designations  are 
invested.  Where  else  is  the  like  to  be  found  ?  And  how  came  the 
Pseudo-Daniel  to  hit  upon  such  a  method  of  conveying  his  ideas?  On 
the  other  hand,  how  could  the  real  Daniel,  the  real  3a  31 ,  avoid  a 
familiar  acquaintance  with  all  the  mathematical  and  astronomical 
sciences  of  the  order  to  which  he  belonged  ?  Was  there  not  something 
in  this  training,  which  had,  it  may  be,  an  insensible  influence  on  his 
manner  of  designating  and  reckoning  time  ? 

At  any  rate,  there  is  the  man,  distinct  from  all  other  prophets  in 
several  respects,  inferior  to  none  in  power,  influence,  integrity,  holiness, 
and  piety ;  and  withal  he  is  a  statesman  and  civilian  of  a  rank  above 
any  of  the  others.  There  is  the  man,  in  a  full  length  portrait,  whom. 
Ezekiel  classes  with  Noah  and  Job;  whom  the  Saviour  calls  a  prophet; 
whom  the  angel  Gabriel  thrice  pronounced  to  be  one  greatly  beloved  of 
God  (9:  23.  10:  11,  19)  ;  and  who,  though  a  captive  and  a  Jewish 
foreigner,  regulated  the  concerns  of  Babylon  for  almost  half  a  century. 
Did  any  conception  of  such  a  man  ever  enter  the  brain  of  a  forger  — 
a  Pseudo-Daniel  —  during  the  Maccabaean  period  ?  At  least  we  are 
certain,  that  nothing  among  the  known  writers  of  that  period  makes  any 
approach  to  such  a  picture  as  this. 

Lastly,  we  should  look  at  the  characteristics  of  his  Messianic  periods. 
In  other  prophets,  we  find  as  it  were  a  great  struggle  to  throw  off  their 
Jewish  feelings  and  partialities.  The  brightest  part  of  their  pictures  is 
the  coming  glory  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham.  The  Gentiles  are 
represented  as  coming  to  them  laden  with  contributions  ;  they  acknowl 
edge  the  prior  right  and  the  loftier  position  of  the  Jews ;  and  the  full 
glory  of  the  Millennial  day  itself  is  described  in  language  that  often 
has  a  strong  Jewish  coloring.  Even  Isaiah  partakes  of  this  deep 
Hebrew  feeling.  When  (in  chap.  Ixvi.)  he  opens  to  our  view  "  the  new 
heavens  and  the  new  earth,"  he  tells  us  of  offerings  brought  by  all 
nations  to  the  holy  mountain  at  Jerusalem,  and  that  "  priests  and  Le- 
vites"  will  be  selected  from  the  Jews  to  present  them.  Nor  is  this  all. 
"  At  every  new  moon,  and  on  every  Sabbath,"  all  flesh  shall  repair  to 
Jerusalem,  in  order  to  worship  in  the  temple  there.  And  the  like  of 
this  might  be  produced  from  many  a  passage  in  the  Hebrew  Palestine 
prophets;  e.  g.  Jer.  31:  31 — 40,  et  al.  saepe.  But  not  so  in  Daniel. 
Educated  abroad,  and  unused  to  the  regular  Jewish  ritual,  its  hold  upon 
his  mind  seems  to  be  less  tenacious.  Hence,  the  fifth  glorious  kingdom, 
as  described  by  him,  is  universal,  without  any  distinction  of  nation,  and 


§  6.    GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY.  457 

without  any  reference  to  Jewish  rites.  It  is  strictly  cosmopolitan. 
"  There  is  one  God  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  Gentiles."  The  Son  of 
Man,  who  comes  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  the  Ancient  of  days, 
receives  a  dominion  and  glory  and  kingdom  of  such  a  nature,  that  "  all 
people,  nations,  and  languages  serve  him  —  a  kingdom  that  will  not 
pass  away  nor  be  destroyed."  Daniel  vii. 

Whence  now  did  the  Pseudo-Daniel  obtain  such  views  ?  Above  all, 
how  could  his  Messianic  development  be  so  ample  —  so  clearly  the  very 
kernel  of  the  whole  book  —  if  this  work  came  from  his  hand?  His 
contemporaries  exhibit  no  such  views.  The  very  little  that  they  have 
said  at  all,  is  so  worldly,  so  merely  temporal  and  civil  and  social,  that  it 
seems  quite  plain,  that  all  spiritual  and  elevated  views  in  respect  to 
this  great  subject  were  nearly  extinct  at  that  period.  Did,  I  might 
even  say,  could  any  man  in  such  an  age  as  that  of  Sirach,  and  of  the 
author  of  Tobit,  and  of  the  first  book  of  the  Maccabees,  attain  to  views 
like  those  in  Daniel?  Even  Lengerke  confesses,  that  the  Messianic 
idea  is  more  developed  here,  than  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Test.,  and  in  a 
more  spiritual  manner.  If  so,  did  the  Maccabaean  period  produce  any 
man  adequate  to  make  such  a  development  ?  I  will  not  say  that  the 
thing  was  impossible ;  but  it  is  risking  very  little  to  say,  that  it  is  al 
together  improbable. 

Let  us  now  cast  our  view  back,  over  the  whole  ground  of  the  defence 
made  for  the  book  before  us.  What  one  thing  is  wanting  to  establish 
its  genuineness,  that  we  should  deem  important  in  proving  the  genuine 
ness  of  any  book  so  ancient  ?  There  is,  first,  the  apparent  testimony 
of  the  writer  himself  to  his  own  authorship,  which  we  are  not  entitled 
to  distrust  a  priori,  but  must  have  some  valid  reason  for  rejecting  it. 
There  is,  next,  the  testimony  of  a  contemporary  prophet  (Ezek.)  to  his 
person  and  his  worth.  There  is,  then,  the  express  testimony  of  our 
Saviour,  that  Daniel  was  a  prophet ;  and  that  of  Paul,  and  John,  who 
in  various  ways  acknowledge  him  as  such,  while  John  has  built  the 
Apocalypse,  as  it  were,  on  the  basis  of  Daniel.  There  is  most  decisive 
testimony  of  Josephus  to  the  Jewish  views,  as  well  as  his  own,  of  the 
preeminence  of  Daniel  as  a  prophet.  There  is,  moreover,  the  perpetu 
al  and  uninterrupted  testimony  of  the  Jews  of  all  ages  to  the  character 
and  worth  of  the  book,  with  which  is  united  that  of  the  whole  Christian 
church,  from  the  beginning  down  nearly  to  the  19th  century.  Not  a 
voice  was  ever  raised  against  the  book,  except  by  some  Porphyry  who 
scoffed  at  all  revelation.  There  is  moreover,  most  grave  and  weighty 
testimony,  and  this  in  constant  succession,  from  the  time  of  Sirach  down 
to  the  present  hour,  that  the  book  of  Daniel  was  a  part  of  the  Jewish 

39 


458  §  6.     GENUINENESS   AND    AUTHENTICITY. 

Canon,  and  that  this  Canon  was  closed  long  before  a  Pseudo-Daniel  is 
alleged  to  have  written  his  work.  The  book  is  so  written,  moreover,  viz. 
in  two  different  languages,  that  we  cannot  well  attribute  it  to  a  writer  of 
the  Maccabaean  period.  Add  to  all  this,  that  the  whole  internal  evi 
dence  is  in  its  favor.  Its  references  to  historical  facts,  to  manners, 
customs,  natural  and  artificial  objects,  and  the  like,  are  all  in  keeping 
with  the  time  when  it  professes  to  have  been  written.  The  character 
of  the  author  in  all  respects  is  congruous  with  his  alleged  condition, 
qualities,  and  station.  It  bears  the  indelible  marks  of  origin  in  a  foreign 
land,  and  in  that  land  where  it  claims  to  have  been  written.  It  is, 
down  to  the  present  hour,  the  best  store-house  of  Babylonish  antiquities 
which  is  extant.  Why  then  reject  its  claims  ?  Most  philologers,  even 
neological  ones,  would  blush  to  disown  a  heathen  book,  which  had  half 
of  these  claims.  Why  should  this  book,  then,  be  the  object  of  such 
unrelenting  persecution  ?  Why  subjected  to  so  much  contumely  ? 
There  is,  as  it  seems  to  me,  but  one  honest  answer  to  this ;  which  is, 
that  if  the  book  be  admitted  to  be  genuine,  then  to  deny  prophecy,  or 
even  explain  it  away,  is  quite  impossible.  Porphyry  saw  this  ;  and  so 
do  the  skeptics  of  the  present  day.  They  can  manage  in  their  way  to 
get  round  other  prophetical  books,  because  they  have  less  distinctness 
in  the  narration  of  particulars.  But  here,  there  is  no  evading  the 
history  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Hence  the  conclusion  is,  that  it  must 
have  been  written  post  eventum.  Miracles  are  first  pronounced  by  an 
a  priori  process,  to  be  impossible ;  and  then  it  is  averred,  that  Daniel 
could  not  have  been  written  during  the  exile,  because,  if  written  then, 
we  must  admit  the  miracle  of  prediction.  Of  course,  then,  the 
Gospels,  and  the  whole  of  the  New  Test,  which  admits  the  facts  related 
in  them,  must  be  spurious  productions ;  or  if  not  spurious,  they  are  at 
all  events,  and  at  best,  but  romantic  fictions  invented  for  the  purpose  of 
making  men  wonder,  and  of  inducing  them  to  listen  to  the  precepts 
which  they  inculcate.  All  this,  now,  surely  stands  or  falls  together. 
Neology  cannot  stop  with  the  overthrow  of  Daniel.  The  ground  as 
sumed  here,  sinks  the  whole  Bible  down  to  the  level  of  the  fabulous 
and  the  incredible.  As  Neology  has  not  a  single  scrap  of  external  evi 
dence  that  will  bear  the  test  of  examination,  in  support  of  the  ground 
which  it  takes,  so  all  degradation  of  Daniel  depends  on  the  a  priori 
assumption  of  a  principle,  which  equally  degrades  every  book  of  the 
Old  Test,  and  of  the  New. 


§7.   OBJECTIONS    AGAINST  THE    GENUINENESS.  459 


§  7.   Objections  against  the  Genuineness  of  the  Booh 

A  large  proportion  of  these  have  already  been  canvassed,  in  the 
course  of  the  Commentary  and  in  the  preceding  critical  discussions.  It 
is  not  my  design  to  repeat  these  discussions  at  length,  in  any  case  where 
they  were  designed  to  be  thorough.  I  shall  therefore  merely  advert  to 
such  objections  as  have  been  canvassed,  and  remit  the  reader  to  the 
preceding  pages,  in  which  they  have  been  respectively  examined.  It 
may  perhaps  strike  the  minds  of  some  readers,  that  it  would  have  been 
preferable  to  embody  the  objections  into  one  mass,  for  the  sake  of  a 
more  convenient  survey  of  them.  But  experience  has  taught  me,  in 
the  reading  and  in  the  writing  of  Commentary,  that  discussions  of  dif 
ficulties  engaged  in  upon  the  spot,  at  the  very  time  and  place  where 
they  occur,  occasion  a  much  higher  interest  in  the  reader,  than  will 
be  felt  when  postponed  to  a  distant  time  and  place.  It  is  on  this  account, 
that  I  have,  in  my  Commentary,  adopted  the  practice  of  discussing 
when  the  text  called  for  discussion.  I  have,  in  consequence  of  this, 
but  a  moderate  list  of  objections  that  now  remain  to  be  canvassed.  y 

Lengerke's  Commentary  on  Daniel  (1835,  Koenigs.)  has  been  gene 
rally  acknowledged,  I  believe,  as  the  most  complete  exposition  and 
defence  of  the  neological  views  respecting  this  book,  which  have  yet 
appeared.  There  is  not  much  in  it,  indeed,  which  is  strictly  original ; 
but  the  author  is  a  most  zealous,  industrious,  and  pains-taking  exponent 
and  defender  of  the  so-called  liberal  criticism.  It  is  on  this  ground,  that 
I  have  already  so  often  referred  to  him ;  and  on  the  same  ground,  that 
I  follow  him  as  my  guide  into  all  the  recesses  of  skeptical  criticism. 

Lengerke,  strenuous  as  he  is  in  collecting  all  that  can  be  said 
against  the  book  of  Daniel,  admits  (in  his  Introduction)  that  Josephus 
and  all  the  Jews,  the  Talmudists  and  Masorites  included,  have  acknow 
ledged  the  genuineness  and  divine  authority  of  the  book,  (s.  iv.  seq). 
He  also  concedes,  that  with  Christ  and  his  apostles  this  book  was  "  in 
the  highest  credit ; "  and  that  "  this  view  of  the  matter  was  not  changed 
among  the  mass  of  Jews  and  Christians  during  the  early  ages  of  the 
Christian  era."  Yet  he  suggests,  that  in  Theodoret's  time  there  were 
some  Jews,  who  doubted  its  place  among  the  prophets.  The  passages 
of  Theodoret,  which  he  cites  in  confirmation  of  this,  (viz.  on  pages  1056 
— 57  and  1058 — 9,  ed.  Schulz),  exhibit  the  writer  as  taxing  the  Jews 
with  something  dvaasfisy  and  adwov,  in  removing  Daniel  from  his 
proper  place  among  the  prophets.  If  Lengerke  had  studied  out  the 
order  of  the  older  Jewish  Canon,  as  exhibited  in  the  pages  above,  he  would 


460  §  7.    OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS. 

not  have  mistaken  the  object  of  Theodoret.  This  father  lived,  when  the 
practice  afmong  the  Jews  of  assigning  Daniel  to  the  Kethubhim  was  ta 
king  its  rise.  It  was  a  novelty  and  was  revolting  to  his  feelings ;  and  so 
he  taxes  them  with  great  impropriety  of  conduct.  This  helps  much, 
when  rightly  understood,  to  confirm  the  views  taken  above  (p.  424  seq.), 
in  respect  to  the  original  canonical  place  of  Daniel. 

Now  and  then  a  solitary  doubt  has  appeared,  in  times  comparatively 
recent,  whether  Daniel  wrote  in  propria  persona  the  whole  of  his  book. 
The  two  different  languages,  and  the  two  great  divisions,  viz.  historic  and 
prophetic,  seem  to  have  given  rise  to  such  doubts.  Some  have  attribu 
ted  one  part  to  Daniel's  own  hand,  and  some  to  another's,  e.  g.  Hobbes,  I. 
Newton,  Beausobre,  Spinoza ;  whilst  Edward  Wells  thinks  the  whole 
was  reduced  to  writing,  after  the  death  of  Daniel.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  (in 
>his  Anmerk.  f.  Ungelehrte.  Th.  10),  doubts  the  genuineness  of  chap,  iii 
— vi. ;  and  Eichhorn  in  his  Einleit.  (ed.  3  and  4)  makes  the  work  a 
mere  copy  of  floating  traditions.  The  first  objector  that  handled  the 
matter  very  seriously,  was  Corrodi,  in  his  Freimuthige  Versuche.  The 
first  works,  however,  that  made  any  deep  impression,  were  the  Com 
mentary  of  Bertholdt,  and  the  Essay  of  Bleek  on  Daniel,  (Theol.  Zeit- 
schrift  von  Schleiermacher  etc.).  Since  that,  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  Ro- 
senmueller,  Hoffmann,  Hitzig,  Redepenning,  Ewald,  Knobel,  and  others, 
have  followed  in  the  track  of  Bleek.  Lengerke  has  given  to  the  world, 
in  his  Commentary,  the  substance  of  all  which  these  and  other  writers 
have  said,  and  for  the  purpose  of  consultation,  therefore,  his  work  is  val 
uable  to  the  student.  Any  one  who  wishes  to  examine  the  question  of 
genuineness,  will  at  least  find  all  that  has  been,  and  I  might  almost  ven 
ture  to  say,  all  that  can  be  said  against  it,  in  the  pages  of  Lengerke. 

After  a  recently  repeated  and  minute  survey  of  all  the  objections 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  book  of  Daniel  that  have  been  urged,  I 
have  been  not  a  little  surprised  at  the  confident  and  triumphant  air  with 
which  the  objections  are  brought  forward.  The  book  is  ejected  from  the 
creditable  Scriptures  with  even  a  scornful  air,  and  its  claims  to  consider 
ation  are  heard  adunco  naso.  Nay,  if  some  of  the  leaders  in  the  new 
critical  school  are  to  be  regarded,  the  story  of  Jack  the  Giant-killer  or  of 
Gulliver's  Travels  is  altogether  as  veracious  and  as  worthy  of  credit,  as 
that  of  Daniel.  What  says  Knobel,  in  his  Hebrew  Prophets  ?  In  §  40 
he  says :  "  In  short,  to  an  unprejudiced  man  no  doubt  can  arise,  that  our 
narrations  [viz.  those  of  Daniel]  are  not  strictly  historical  accounts,"  (s. 
329).  Again,  speaking  of  the  graphic  specifications  of  Daniel's  prophe 
cies,  he  says :  "  The  special  exactness  of  these  prophecies  proves,  in  a 
striking  manner,  that  they  took  their  rise  after  the  times  respecting  which 


§  7.    OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE   GENUINENESS.  461 

they  speak.  This  is  an  incontrovertible  argument  against  the  genuine-  y 
ness  of  the  book"  (s.  402).  In  like  manner  De  Wette :  "  It  is  clear 
that  Daniel  was  not  the  author  of  this  book,  from  the  fabulous  contents 
of  it,  which  are  full  of  improbabilities,  dazzling  miracles,  and  historical 
inaccuracies,  the  like  of  which  can  be  found  in  no  other  prophetical  book 
of  the  O.  Test.,"  (Einleit.  §  255).  In  a  note  appended  to  this  passage, 
he  refers,  in  the  way  of  example,  to  Dan.  vi.  (which  gives  an  account  of 
the  lions' den),  of  which  he  says:  "The  representation  is  ridiculous? 
(lacherliche).  Further  proof  than  this,  from  two  men  usually  so  calm  f 
and  sober,  and  who  are  so  well  informed,  as  Knobel  and  De  Wette,  is  not 
needed  in  order  to  show  with  what  Turkish  justice  the  cause  of  Daniel 
has  been  heard  and  decided,  by  the  neological  court  of  late  erected.  But 
as  we,  in  this  land  of  liberty,  are  not  yet  under  Turkish  supervision  or 
domain,  we  are  quite  inclined  to  take  the  liberty  of  appealing  to  the 
high  court  of  critical  justice,  which  decides  after  examination,  and  de 
cides  in  accordance  with  facts  and  arguments.  Daniel  is  indeed  no  ridi 
culous  man,  in  our  eyes ;  and  audi  alterant  partem  is  yet  current  in  our 
free  land. 

Meantime  the  book  in  question  has  not  been  without  its  advocates  and  ^ 
defenders.  Staudlin,  Beckhaus,  Jahn,  Sack,  Hengstenberg,  and  Haver- 
nick,  with  others  of  less  note,  have  entered  the  lists,  with  various  armour, 
and  somewhat  diverse  skill  in  employing  it.  Hengstenberg's  Authen- 
tie  des  Daniel  is  the  most  extensive  discussion  of  the  subject,  and  also 
the  most  able ;  with  the  exception,  perhaps  of  Havernick's  Neue  Uhter- 
suchungen,  appended  at  present  to  his  Commentary.  In  his  general 
Einleitung,  also,  this  last  writer  has  presented  a  striking  summary  of  the 
case  of  Daniel,  as  to  the  attacks  make  upon  it  and  the  defence  set  up  for 
it.  These  two  last  named  writers  exhibit  almost  every  thing,  that  has 
been  advanced  on  both  sides.  I  have  not  always  followed  either  of  them, 
however,  in  my  defence  of  the  book ;  and  sometimes  I  have  felt  obliged 
to  differ  from  and  to  oppose  them  both.  But  this  abates  little  or  nothing  / 
from  the  respect  that  I  feel  for  them,  nor  from  my  gratitude  for  their 
very  able  and  faithful  services.*  In  several  cases  I  have  pursued  invest 
igations  beyond  the  limits  of  theirs ;  and  in  some,  I  have  assayed  to  make 
my  way  in  tracks  on  which  they  did  not  enter.  Each  man  who  writes  on 
a  subject  of  so  much  moment  as  the  one  before  us,  ought  to  add  some 
thing  to  the  stock  already  on  hand. 

*  A  short  time  before  the  writing  of  this  paragraph,  I  learned  from  the  public  Jourr 
nals,  that  Havernick  has  gone  to  his  rest,  in  the  very  meridian  of  life  and  usefulness. 
Biblical  criticism  has  experienced  a  great  loss  by  his  premature  decease ;  for  he  was 
fast  advancing  on  the  high  road  to  the  very  summit  of  the  sacred  Parnassus. 


462  §  7.   OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

Opponents  to  the  genuineness  of  the  book  of  Daniel  have,  as  yet,  been 
able  to  find  only  two  grounds  of  an  external  nature,  on  which  they  rest 
their  cause. 

(1)  '  The  book  of  Daniel  is  placed  among  the  latest  books  of  the  Ke- 
thubhim ;  which  shows,  say  they,  that  it  must  have  been  added  to  the 
Canon  after  the  closing  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.     Moreover,  this 
Canon  could  not  have  been  completed,  until  after  the  time  of  the  Mac 
cabees.     Had  the  book  been  written  in  the  exile-period,  it  would  no 
doubt  have  been  ranked  with  the  other  prophets.' 

To  this  I  have  only  to  say,  that  the  last  assertion  is  not  without  good 
ground ;  but  it  in  reality  touches  only  a  very  small  part  of  the  case. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  stands  beyond  any  reasonable  critical  doubt,  that 
the  book  of  Daniel  was  connected  with  the  other  prophets,  and  that  it  oc 
cupied,  in  the  ancient  Canon,  a  place  immediately  before  or  after  Ezekiel, 
down  to  a  period  near  to  the  fifth  century.  The  Talmudists  of  that  day 
were  the  first  to  put  it  among  the  Kethubhim ;  and  Jerome,  at  the  same 
period,  who  spent  many  years  in  studying  with  them,  gives  us  an  ac 
count  of  the  manner  in  which  they  divided  the  scriptural  books,  arrang 
ing  Daniel  among  the  Hagiography.  Theodoret,  as  we  have  seen 
above  (p.  459),  tasks  the  Rabbies  severely  for  this  proceeding;  and  Je 
rome  and  the  Rabbies  of  his  day  are  the  only  men  in  all  early  antiquity, 
who  have  given  to  the  Jewish  Scriptures  such  an  arrangement. 

In  §  6  (d)  above,  I  have  amply  discussed  this  subject ;  and  it  would 
be  superfluous  here  to  do  anything  more,  than  I  have  already  done  by 
merely  stating  the  results  of  my  previous  investigation.  The  answer  to 
the  allegation  in  question  is,  that  the  fact  alleged,  on  which  it  is  entirely 
grounded,  is  not  only  incapable  of  proof,  but  the  direct  contrary  has  an 
overwhelming  mass  of  evidence  in  its  favor.  Such  being  the  case,  Daniel's 
original  place  in  the  Canon,  (a  fact  clearly  established),  is  one  of  the 
most  cogent  arguments  in  favor  of  its  genuineness  and  antiquity ;  see 
§  6  ut  supra. 

(2)  The  only  remaining  external  ground  relied  on  is,  that  the  l  Son  of 
Sirach,  in  his  Eulogy  of  the  Fathers,  (chaps,  xliv — 1.),  has  omitted  to 
mention  Daniel  among  these  Fathers ;  which  shows  that  the  book  of 
Daniel  did  not  then  exist.' 

At  most,  however,  this  is  only  an  argumentum  ex  silentio  —  nearly 
always  a  very  weak  and  slippery  one  in  matters  of  criticism.  If  there 
be  any  weight  in  it,  on  this  occasion,  it  must  result  either  from  the  fact, 
that  the  author's  catalogue  of  worthies  was  designed  to  be  complete,  or 
at  least  from  the  fact,  that  he  meant  to  include  all  canonical  writers. 
But  neither  of  these  positions  is  true.  Nearly  one  half  of  those  whom 


§  7.   OBJECTIONS  AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS.  463 

he  eulogizes,  were  not  writers  at  all  of  any  part  of  the  Scriptures.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  omits  many  of  great  name,  while  he  inserts  others 
who  were  clearly  their  inferiors.  E.  g.  he  inserts  Phinehas,  Caleb, 
Nathan,  Zorobabel,  and  Joshua  the  high  priest,  while  he  omits  many 
prophets,  priests,  and  kings,  of  equal  or  greater  celebrity.  A  glaring 
example  is  presented  in  the  eulogy  of  Nehemiah,  while  Ezra  (with  his 
book  also)  is  wholly  omitted.  Can  there  be  any  question  as  to  the  su 
periority  of  the  latter  over  the  former  ?  But,  what  is  more  than  all,  he 
omits  the.whole  corps  of  the  Minor  Prophets.  The  passage  in  49: 10,  which 
in  the  common  Vatican  text  makes  mention  of  them,  is  shown  by 
Bretschneider  (in  loc.)  to  be  clearly  spurious,  it  having  been  copied 
verbatim  from  46:  12,  with  merely  the  substitution  of  TOJV  dadexa  TIQO- 
cpqTav  for  avtav.  Some  partial  friend  of  Sirach  has  plainly  endeavored 
thus  to  fill  up  what  was  seemingly  a  gap  in  the  Am]<5i$.  This  last 
circumstance  shows  most  clearly,  that  the  plan  of  Sirach  was  not  all-com 
prehensive.  He  made  a  selection  ;  and  in  this  he  did  not  confine  himself 
to  writers,  or  kings,  or  priests,  or  prophets.  He  has  some,  and  only 
some,  of  all  these  classes.  It  would  be  difficult  perhaps  to  say  by  what 
principle  he  was  guided ;  but  the  general  tenor  of  his  selection  justifies 
the  position,  that  distinguished,  active,  influential,  and  pious  men  among 
the  Jews,  mostly  before  the  exile,  who  had  been  signal  benefactors,  or 
deliverers,  or  moral  and  religious  teachers,  were  the  objects  of  his 
choice.  But  Daniel  spent  his  life  and  wrote  his  book  abroad,  and  never 
was  either  a  hero  or  a  prophet  under  the  theocracy.  Indeed,  he  never 
directly  addressed  the  Jews  at  all.  The  plan  of  Sirach,  therefore,  so  far 
as  we  can  ascertain  it,  would  hardly  comprise  him.  Yet  even  when  we 
assume  this  principle  of  selection,  we  find  enough  of  the  arbitrary  in 
Sirach's  eulogy,  to  show  that  he  did  not  rigidly  adhere  even  to  this,  or 
to  any  particular  rule  in  selecting.  How  came  he  to  omit  Ezra,  who 
did  act  in  Palestine  and  who  was  a  canonical  writer,  and  yet  insert 
Zerubbabel,  and  Jeshua,  and  Nehemiah  ?  And  can  the  circumstance, 
that  Daniel  is  omitted  in  such  a  eulogy,  where  the  selection  manifests  so 
little  discrimination,  and  is  confined  within  such  narrow  bounds  —  can 
this  be  alleged  as  a  decisive  reason  against  the  existence  of  Daniel's 
book  when  Sirach  wrote  ?  If  so,  then  it  is  equal  evidence  against  the 
book  of  Ezra,  and  specially  against  the  book  of  Esther.  How  came  this 
last  book,  with  the  famous  queen  whose  name  it  bears,  and  the  renowned 
Mordecai,  the  great  deliverer  of  the  Jewish  nation  from  universal  mas 
sacre,  to  be  passed  over  in  silence  ?  Why  did  Sirach  omit  Job  ?  Eze- 
kiel  had  held  him  up  before  the  world  as  worthy  of  being  associated  with 
Noah  and  Daniel.  Conspicuous  also  among  the  sacred  writings,  was 


464  §  7.  OBJECTIONS  AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

the  book  of  Job.  Why  should  he  be  omitted  ?  It  is  not  even  pretended, 
that  Sirach  had  not  a  knowledge  of  these  books  and  persons ;  and  if  he 
had  that  knowledge,  on  what  ground,  we  ask  again,  were  they  omitted  ? 
And  does  the  silence  of  Sirach,  in  this  case,  prove  that  these  books  and 
these  personages  did  not  exist  ?  On  the  other  hand,  is  it  not  plain,  that 
the  same  principle  led  to  the  omission  in  this  case,  which  governed  in 
the  omission  of  Daniel,  viz.  that  the  author  intended  to  include  only 
those  who  had  been  active  in  Palestine  ?  At  any  rate,  the  whole  argu 
ment  is  worthless,  when  such  facts  as  these  lie  before  us.  Does  any  one 
regard  it  as  a  satisfactory  proof,  that  no  Nebuchadnezzar  ever  lived  and 
reigned,  and  that  he  did  not  overrun  Asia  Minor  and  besiege  Tyre,  be 
cause  none  of  the  Greek  historians,  not  even  Herodotus,  ever  mention 
his  name?  (see  p.  121  supra).  Where,  moreover,  should  we  begin  and 
where  end,  with  this  argumentum  a  silentio  ?  What  could  be  done  with 
the  Gospels,  (where  they  differ  from  each  other  in  their  order,  or  where 
one  or  more  of  them  keep  entire  silence  as  to  certain  facts),  on  such  a 
ground  as  this  ?  For  my  own  part,  I  always  feel  suspicious  either  of  a 
cause,  or  of  the  convictions  of  those  who  plead  it,  when  they  resort  to 
such  flimsy  argumentation  as  this.  Men  do  not  commonly  undertake  to 
buttress  a  building  with  spalt  and  decaying  timber,  when  they  can  obtain 
pillars  of  granite  or  of  marble.  De  Wette,  who  at  first  welcomed  this 
notable  argument  which  Bleek  has  urged  very  strenuously,  seems  to 
have  become  rather  shy  of  it  in  later  times.  He  says  with  his  usual 
naivete  :  "  To  be  sure,  this  circumstance  may  be  taken  into  consideration" 
I  have  endeavored  to  follow  his  advice  ;  but  I  find  a  result  quite  different 
from  that  which  he  would  seem  to  approve. 

We  have  done  with  external  grounds.  And  if  the  internal  are  not 
stronger  than  these,  the  opinion  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  respecting 
Daniel  may  still  be  regarded  as  quite  safe  and  unshaken. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  INTERNAL  GROUNDS  alleged  by  the  oppo 
nents  of  the  book  against  its  genuineness.  For  convenience'  sake,  I 
shall  follow  Lengerke  as  to  the  order  of  arrangement. 

(3)  Lengerke  ranks  at  the  head  of  these  internal  grounds,  '  the  testi 
mony  which  he  says  is  given  by  the  Greek  words  in  Daniel,  inasmuch 
as  they  show  the  influence  of  the  Greek  on  the  real  author  of  the  book, 
i.  e.  the  Pseudo-Daniel,  who  must  have  lived  in  the  times  of  Greek 
domination.' 

Most  cases  of  this  nature  are  taken  from  the  name  of  musical  instru 
ments,  in  chap.  3:  5.  I  do  not  deem  it  important  to  repeat  the  discussion 
of  this  topic  here,  as  the  reader  will  find  it  in  the  Commentary  on  this 
passage,  p.  81  seq.  Whatever  else  Lengerke  has  of  this  nature,  is  also 


§  7.  OBJECTIONS  AGAINST   THE   GENUINENESS.  465 

examined  in  the  various  passages  where  the  words  occur.  The  whole 
thing  is  so  fanciful,  and  has  so  little  foundation  in  true  philology,  that  to 
particularize  any  further,  would  be  a  mere  waste  of  time.  At  most,  not 
more  than  three  or  four  words  are  traceable  to  the  Greek,  and  even 
these  are  of  a  doubtful  origin. 

(4)  *  The  diction  of  Daniel  is  of  the  very  latest  kind,  such  as  we  find 
in  Ezra,  Neh.,  Esth.,  and  Chronicles,  also  in  Ezekiel.     It  approaches 
very  nearly  to  the   Rabbinic  of  the  later  ages.'    Thus  Lengerke  and 
Bertholdt. 

Bleek,  however,  is  candid  enough  to  give  up  this  entirely.  He  says 
very  justly:  "We  have  in  general  too  few  remains  of  the  different  cen 
turies  after  the  exile,  to  draw  any  conclusion  as  to  the  gradual  deprecia 
tion  of  the  language,  and  to  determine  with  any  certainty  to  what  par 
ticular  period  any  writer  belongs,"  (Zeitschr.,  etc.  s.  213).  As  to  Rob- 
binism,  no  one  has  yet  ventured  to  appeal  to  examples ;  and  until  the 
charge  is  sustained  by  some  proof,  we  may  rest  content  with  the  plea  of 
not  guilty.  In  respect  to  the  other  books  named,  I  should  deem  it  of  no 
importance,  to  show  that  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel  was  in  general  discrepant 
from  that  which  they  exhibit.  So  near  were  the  writers  to  his  time,  that 
we  may  well  suppose  the  idioms  in  general  to  be  alike.  All  of  them 
belong  to  a  period  closing  with  the  exile,  or  occurring  within  a  short 
time  after  it ;  and  all  of  them  are  in  some  measure  affected  by  the  Chal- 
dee  dialect,  which  their  authors  spoke  or  wrote.  Yet  Daniel,  in  the 
judgment  of  Gesenius  (Geschich.  Heb.  Sprach.  s.  35),  has  decidedly  a 
purer  diction  than  Ezekiel ;  in  which  opinion,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to 
judge  after  much  time  spent  upon  the  book,  and  examining  minutely 
every  word  and  phrase  in  it  many  times  over,  I  should  entirely  coincide. 
I  should  go  still  further,  and  say,  it  is  more  normal  Hebrew  than  some 
portions  of  even  Jeremiah,  of  Ezra,  of  Coheleth,  and  of  Chronicles.  As 
to  the  ana£,  hsyopeva  of  the  book,  I  feel  no  reluctance  to  admit  them. 
But  if  there  be  any  argument  in  adducing  these,  it  will  apply  in  an  equal 
measure,  to  all  the  later  books,  and  to  not  a  few  of  the  others.  It  proves 
nothing  more,  in  general,  than  that  the  writer,  having  occasion  to  express 
ideas  peculiarly  his  own,  has  used  corresponding  words  not  elsewhere 
found  because  the  ideas  are  not.  Besides,  the  argument  is  one  of  those 
which  prove  altogether  too  much  ;  and  therefore  establish  nothing.  The 
examples  which  Lengerke  produces  are  many  of  them  mistaken  and 
hasty  ones ;  and  the  others  are  only  of  such  a  character  as  may  be  found 
in  Ezekiel,  in  Jeremiah,  in  Zechariah,  or  in  Coheleth. 

(5)  *  The  expression  n-ns&n ,  in  Dan.  9:  2,  shows  that  a  definite  well 
known  collection  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  had  already  been  made, 


466  §  7.  OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

which  could  not  have  been  before  Nehemiah's  time.  Moreover,  the 
book  of  Daniel  has  copied  many  things  from  Nehemiah,  which  shows 
that  it  must  have  been  later.' 

As  to  the  first,  the  Comm.  on  9:  2  will  supply  the  answer.  It  will  not 
be  denied,  that  each  of  Jeremiah's  predictions  in  25:  11  seq.  29:  10  seq. 
is  called  ^B&rt ;  of  course,  both  of  them,  (for  both  relate  to  the  seventy 
years),  are  rightly  called  c^Stprt.  And  these  are  plainly  all  the  closed 
canon,  that  Daniel  9:  2  is  concerned  with.  As  to  the  assertion  that 
Daniel  has  copied  Nehemiah,  I  have  only  to  guess  that  this  matter  may 
be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  VGTEQOV  TIQOT&QOV,  and  accordingly  say,  that 
Nehemiah  copied  Daniel ;  which,  by  the  way,  is  much  the  more  probable 
of  the  two,  if  there  is  any  copying  in  the  case.  But  of  this,  I  see  no 
satisfactory  proof.  Men  in  like  circumstances,  with  like  feelings,  views, 
and  wishes,  and  living  at  the  same  period,  may  easily  be  supposed  to' 
utter  some  things  in  relation  to  a  matter  of  deep  interest  to  both,  that 
have  a  near  resemblance.  This  is  all  that  can  be  found  in  the  case 
before  us ;  and  of  this  any  critical  reader  of  the  originals  may  satisfy 
himself  by  minutely  comparing  Neh.  ix.  with  Dan.  ix.,  for  these  are  the 
two  passages  mainly  relied  on.  Both  are  fast-day  confessions  ;  both 
were  poured  forth  from  hearts  deeply  affected  with  the  sins  and  the 
punishment  of  the  Hebrews.  After  all,  however,  the  general  tenor  of 
them  is  so  different,  that  no  one  would  suspect  any  copying  in  the  case, 
unless  put  on  the  alert  to  find  it  by  a  famine  of  good  arguments  to  suit 
his  purpose. 

(6)  "  The  useless  prodigality  of  miracles,  which  are  improbable  in 
themselves,  and  rest  upon  erroneous  testimony,  is  a  strong  objection  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  book."  So  Lengerke ;  and  Knobel  and  others 
assert  directly  and  fully,  that  the  narration  of  such  things  demonstrates 
that  the  book  is  utterly  unworthy  of  credit.  De  Wette,  as  we  have 
seen  above  (p.  461),  says  that  the  story  of  the  lions'  den  is  ridiculous. 

Of  course,  chap,  iii,  iv,  v,  vi,  are  all  attacked  with  vehemence,  and 
every  kind  of  sneer  and  contumely  and  scorn  is  called  into  requisition, 
in  order  to  show  that  they  are  utterly  unworthy  of  credit.  A  few 
specimens  may  suffice.  As  to  chap,  ii.,  Lengerke  says,  that  '  Nebu 
chadnezzar  would  never  have  permitted  Daniel  to  speak  of  the  over 
throw  of  his  dynasty ;  that  he  never  would  or  could  have  demanded 
that  a  dream  forgotten  by  himself,  should  be  recalled  by  others  ;  that 
the  whole  affair  of  dreaming  and  interpreting  is  only  a  mere  imitation 
of  Gen.  xli,  ( Pharaoh's  dream  and  Joseph's  interpretation)  ;  that  Dan 
iel  makes  out  a  Median  dynasty,  which  never  existed  ;  that  he  makes 
the  Messianic  kingdom  immediately  to  follow  that  of  Alexander's  sue- 


§7.   OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE   GENUINENESS.  467 

cessors,  and  finally,  that  it  was  of  no  use  to  Nebuchadnezzar  to  know 
who  would  succeed  him,  and  therefore  the  whole  matter  was  unimpor 
tant,  and  unworthy  of  any  miracle  to  carry  it  through.' 

Chap.  iii.  comes  in  for  its  full  share.  '  The  idol  is  monstrous  and 
incredible ;  and  Daniel  —  where  was  he,  so  that  no  mention  is  made  of 
him,  when  he  of  all  men  was  most  expected  to  be  present  ?  The  Baby 
lonians  were  no  persecutors  for  the  sake  of  religion,  and  yet  this  book 
represents  them  as  such ;  during  the  exile  no  miracles  were  performed 
or  heard  of;  Nebuchadnezzar  was  favorable  to  the  Jews,  and  would 
heat  no  furnaces  seven  times  hotter  than  usual  to  destroy  them,  (I  say 
them,  for  of  course  he  did  not  expect  his  own  heathen  subjects  to  diso 
bey  him) ;  every  where  there  is  an  effort  to  introduce  the  wonderful 
and  to  magnify  it ;  and  finally,  Hitzig  is  quoted  as  having  strikingly 
(treffend)  said :  "  As  to  the  miraculous  escape  [in  the  furnace],  Heng- 
stenberg  must  here  fall  back  on  his  a  priori  faith.  Forsooth  a  miracle 
which  changes  the  very  nature  of  an  element,  is  a  great  one !  It  is 
the  greatest  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  not,  therefore,  the  most  proba 
ble."  In  conclusion  Lengerke  remarks,  that  "  the  story  considered  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  contradicts  the  regular  and  sublime  movements  of  the 
Godhead  as  developed  in  history,  and  his  manner  of  dealing  with  his 
people."  (s.  105  seq). 

Chap.  iv.  has  also  its  full  share  of  difficulties.  '  Nebuchadnezzar's 
madness  is  the  strangest  and  most  incredible  of  all  things,  and  no  histo 
rian  takes  notice  of  it ;  we  can  never  suppose,  with  any  probability, 
that  he  would  have  published  his  own  shame  and  degradation  to  the 
world  ;  and  what  became  of  his  kingdom  during  seven  years  of  mania? 
How  comes  it  that  he  "built  great  Babylon,"  when  other  historians 
ascribe  this  to  Semiramis  and  Nitocris  ?  And  who  can  believe  in  his  re 
storation  to  the  throne,  and  in  his  thanksgiving  to  the  God  of  the  Jews  ? 

Chap.  v.  is  said  to  '  exhibit  many  a  contradiction  and  improbability  ; 
Daniel  appears  as  a  stranger  to  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  and  this 
so-called  son  was  not  even  of  the  royal  progeny ;  if  the  writing  on  the  wall 
was  hieroglyphical,  then  the  Magi  could  interpret  it ;  if  it  was  demotic, 
all  could  read  it ;  if  it  was  neither,  Daniel  could  interpret  it  no  more 
than  the  Magi;  such  a  tyrant  as  Belshazzar  would  neither  have 
suffered  Daniel  to  threaten  him  with  judgments,  nor  have  rewarded 
him ;  the  profanation  of  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  temple  was  a  thing 
unheard  of  in  all  ancient  heathendom.  Daniel  contradicts  himself,  for  one 
moment  he  refuses  a  bribe,  and  the  next  he  receives  it ;  and  finally,  it  is 
altogether  improbable,  that,  during  one  and  the  same  night,  the  feast 
could  be  celebrated,  the  writing  interpreted,  the  city  taken,  and  Daniel 
proclaimed  the  third  officer  in  the  kingdom,  (s.  238  ff ). 


468  §7.    OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

Against  chap.  vi.  it  is  alleged,  that  there  was  no  Darius  the  Mede ; 
that  the  division  of  the  realm  into  three  great  Satrapies  is  unsupposable ; 
that  the  silly  statute,  forbidding  all  to  ask  any  thing  of  God  or  man  for 
thirty  days,  is  altogether  incredible ;  that  there  are  internal  indicia  in 
this  statute  of  its  being  a  Jewish  composition ;  that  Daniel  could  never 
have  been  fanatic  enough  to  believe  in  his  escape  from  punishment ; 
that  the  lions  could  not  have  lived  without  being  smothered,  in  such  a 
den  as  the  book  describes,  and  that  the  whole  story  is  manufactured  out 
of  the  account  of  the  pit  into  which  Joseph's  brethren  cast  him  (Gen. 
37:  24)  ;  that  the  edict  of  Darius,  commanding  all  his  subjects  to  worship 
the  God  of  Daniel,  is  the  most  atrocious  and  incredible  intolerance ;  and 
finally,  that  the  preservation  of  Daniel  in  such  a  den,  was,  like  all  the 
other  wonders  of  this  book,  not  only  a  useless  affair,  but  against  the 
divine  economy.' 

Thus  Lengerke ;  with  whom  Knobel  fully  sympathizes,  and  De 
Wette,  as  we  have  seen,  calls  the  whole  story  ridiculous.  As  a  stand 
ing  accusation,  scattered  here  and  there  throughout  the  whole  com 
mentary  of  Leng.  on  these  chapters,  it  is  declared,  that  the  writer  every 
where  seeks  to  paint  every  thing  in  the  most  glaring  colors,  and  is 
excessively  prone  to  make  every  thing  into  a  stupendous  miracle,  so 
often  as  he  can  find  an  occasion. 

I  need  not  here  repeat  an  investigation  of  any  of  these  charges.  In 
my  Commentary  and  Excursus  on  the  chapters  in  question,  I  have  said 
all  that  I  deem  necessary  or  expedient.  It  would  seem  that  the  mind 
of  any  one  must  be  full  of  bitterness,  as  well  as  unbeliefj  to  treat  the 
lofty  scenes  of  this  book  in  such  a  manner.  I  should  deem  it  a  difficult 
task,  to  find  specimens  of  the  moral  sublime  superior  to  those  exhibited 
in  the  conduct  of  Daniel.  A  deeper  vein  of  ardent  piety  and  humility, 
more  lofty  and  inflexible  integrity,  and  less  of  the  fear  of  man  where 
the  honor  of  God  and  the  claims  of  duty  demand  action  or  speaking,  I 
think  could  be  found  only  in  him  "  who  knew  no  sin,  and  in  whose 
mouth  guile  was  not  found."  How  different  are  impressions  which  dif 
ferent  persons  may  receive,  in  reading  the  very  same  book  !  There  is 
some  evidence,  however,  that  in  this  case  I  am  in  the  right,  because  our 
Saviour,  and  his  apostles,  and  the  prophet  Ezekiel  of  old,  have  given 
plain  and  incontrovertible  evidence  of  the  same  impressions  in  respect  to 
Daniel  that  I  have  expressed. 

One  thing  is  clear;  which  is,  that  if  the  principles  assumed  and 
urged  by  Lengerke  and  his  friends  are  correct,  then  are  the  Gospels  as 
much  more  incredible  than  the  book  of  Daniel,  as  the  number  of  mira 
cles  related  in  them  is  greater  than  those  in  the  prophet's  book.  This 


§  7.    OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE    GENUINENESS.  469 

is  a  consequence  inevitable  and  utterly  undeniable.  Unbelief  as  to 
miracles  is  the  simple  basis  of  all  this  seemingly  imposing  structure 
of  the  Neologists ;  and  this,  maintained  with  consistency,  brings  us  just 
where  Strauss  has  invited  us  to  go,  or  puts  us  under  the  same  category 
with  Bruno  Bauer. 

(7)  Parachronisms,  or  errors  in  chronology,  are  alleged  against  the 
book ;  e.  g.  in  1: 1,  (the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim)  ;  1:  5  and  2: 1 ;    1:  21 
and  10:  1 ;   also  historical  contradictions  respecting  the  Magi  in  ch.  ii. ; 
and  respecting  the  lions'  den  in  ch.  vi.    It  is  alleged,  moreover,  that  there 
was  no  Shushan  in  the  time  of  Belshazzar,  as  stated  in  8:  2  ;  that  there 
were  no  Satrapies  in  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  dynasty,  nor  even 
among  the  Medes  and  Persians  when  Babylon  was  taken  ;  that  Nebu 
chadnezzar  was  not  the  father  of  Belshazzar ;  that  there  was  no  king  of 
this  latter  name  ;x  that  such  king,  whatever  was  his  name,  was  not  slain 
at  the  capture  of  the  city ;  that  Darius  the  Mede  (as  king  of  Babylon) 
never  had  any  existence ;  and  that  in  11:2,  the  writer  shows  himself 
wholly  ignorant  of  the  history  of  the  Persian  kings,  making  only  four. 

All  these  allegations  have  been  discussed,  in  my  remarks  on  the  pas 
sages  respectively  concerned,  and  to  them  I  refer  the  reader  for  what  I 
have  deemed  proper  to  say  in  respect  to  the  objections  just  mentioned. 

(8)  A  great  multitude  of  improbable  and  suspicious  assertions  or  decla 
rations  are  put  to  the  account  of  Daniel.    The  rigorous  ascetics  of  the 
young  Jews  in  ch.  i. ;  the  foolish  demand  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  ch.  ii. ; 
the  description  of  the  image  in  ch.  iii. ;  the  absence  of  Daniel  at  the  con 
secration  of  the  idol  (ibid.)  ;  the  religious  persecution  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and  "  the  despicable  obstinacy  and  fanaticism  of  the  Jewish  officials"  (ibid.); 
the  seven  years'  madness  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  his  publishing  this  to  the 
world  ;  his  praying,  before  his  madness  left  him  ;  the  definite  marks  of  not 
being  authentic  contained  in  his  edict  itself ;  that  Daniel  did  not  appear 
with  the  Magi  before  Belshazzar ;  the  kindness  of  this  king  to  Daniel ; 
that  the  latter  was  made  third  ruler  the  same  night  in  which  the  feast 
was  held  ;  the  profanation  of  the  holy  vessels  (ch.  v.)  ;  the  foolish  decree 
of  Darius ;  the  fanaticism  of  Daniel ;  the  incredible  intolerance  of  the  king, 
and  marks  of  Jewish  composition  in  his  edict  (ch.  vi.)  ;  all  these  are  al 
leged  against  the  book  of  Daniel.     But  nearly  every  one  of  these  has 
already  been  produced  by  Lengerke  under  preceding  heads,  and  there 
fore  need  not  have  been  again  repeated.    But  he  seems  to  feel,  that  his 
cause  depends  somewhat  on  the  number  as  well  as  the  quality  of  the  testi 
monies  which  he  reckons  up  ;  and  if  the  same  witness  is  twice  brought 
upon  the  stand,  it  helps  to  increase  the  number  of  testimonies,  if  not  their 
weight. 

40 


470  §7.    OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

I  have  only  to  subjoin,  that  all  these  topics  have  already  been  discussed, 
as  our  text  has  presented  occasion ;  and  therefore  I  shall  not  follow  him 
in  repeating  over  again  the  same  arguments. 

(9)  *  The  dogmatic  views  of  the  book  differ  widely  from  those  that  be 
long  to  the  exile-period,  and  agree  with  those  in  the  times  of  the  Macca 
bees,  (a)  The  Christology  in  Daniel  is  far  more  perfected  than  in  Eze- 
kiel.  In  ch.  vii.,  the  Messiah  appears  as  a  super-human  being ;  even  a 
divine  nature  is  attributed  to  him,  (which  occurs  nowhere  else  except  in 
those  Sibylline  Oracles  which  were  written  at  the  Maccabaean  period); 
and  in  general,  the  Messianic  views  in  Daniel  find  numerous  parallels  in 
the  apocryphal  books,  but  nowhere  else.' 

That  the  Messianic  development  is  more  clear  and  full  in  Daniel  than 
in  Ezekiel,  I  am  as  fully  persuaded  as  Lengerke  is.  But  what  of  that  ? 
Is  it  any  strange  thing,  that  the  last  great  prophet,  employed  to  predict 
the  state  of  the  Jewish  nation  after  their  return  from  exile,  and  when 
they  come  under  the  domain  of  some  of  the  great  dynasties  which  he  fore 
saw  —  is  it  strange  that  he,  who  has  developed  the  fifth  or  universal 
Messianic  empire  with  a  true  catholic  and  cosmopolitan  spirit,  rejecting 
even  the  usual  Jewish  costume  in  his  picture  —  that  he  should  have  gone 
on  in  advance  of  Ezekiel  ?  So  far  is  this  from  being  strange,  that  I 
should  say,  it  is  altogether  congruous  with  what  we  should  expect  of  him 
situated  as  he  was,  and  with  that  peculiar  measure  of  special  prophetic 
foresight,  which  his  other  predictions  develop.  How  is  Lengerke  to  show, 
that  progress  is  impossible  or  improbable  ? 

As  to  the  assertion  *hat  a  divine  nature  is  nowhere  else  in  the  0.  Test. 
Scriptures  attributed  to  the  Messiah  —  that  is  a  matter  which  belongs  to 
Lengerke's  subjective  views  of  exegesis.  It  is  quite  possible,  as  we  find 
by  frequent  experience,  for  men  "  to  have  eyes  and  see  not."  But  if  a 
man,  shutting  his  eyes  at  mid-day  with  a  clear  sky,  should  deny  that  it  is 
light,  we  should  not  feel  bound  to  disprove  his  assertion.  Still  we  may 
advert  to  some  of  the  passages  which  make  against  the  declaration  of 
Lengerke.  Ps.  2:  7  calls  him  the  Son  of  God,  which,  as  Hengstenberg  and 
others  insist,  must  be  understood  in  a  literal  sense.  This  I  do  not  believe ; 
for  if  he  is  a  literal  Son,  then  could  he  be  neither  self-existent  nor  inde 
pendent,  and  therefore  could  not  be  truly  God.  The  word  Son  has 
an  official  sense.  But  in  Ps.  45:  7,  8,  he  is  called  God,  and  God's  throne 
is  assigned  to  him,  Ps.  ex.,  compared  with  our  Saviour's  commentary  in- 
Matt.  22:  41 — 46,  plainly  shows  his  higher  nature.  Isa.  9:  5  calls  him 
the  mighty  God.  Isa.  11:  2 — 4  ascribes  to  him  supreme  power  of  chas 
tising  the  wicked.  Micah  5:  2  makes  his  "  goings  forth  to  be  everlasting." 
Ps.  Ixxii.  attributes  to  him  an  eternal  reign.  Mai.  3: 1  represents  him  as 


§7.    OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS.  471 

Jehovah  coming  to  his  temple.  Isa.  6  :1 — 4,  if  we  may  trust  the  apostle 
John  as  an  expositor  (John  12:41),  shows  that  Christ  is  Jehovah  of  hosts. 
By  implication,  many  other  passages  might  be  brought  to  bear  on  the 
same  point.  But  I  forbear.  Lengerke  has  a  way  in  which  he  disposes 
of  each,  and  which  makes  them  give  very  different  testimony  from  that 
which  I  must  believe  they  were  intended  to  give. 

In  respect  to  the  remaining  declaration  of  Lengerke,  viz.  that  the 
Christology  of  Daniel,  so  advanced  and  completed  as  it  is,  can  find  its 
like  only  in  the  apocryphal  books,  it  is  the  most  unfortunate  of  all.  We 
have  already  seen,  (pp.  435  seq.),  that  a  spiritual  and  personal  Messiah 
and  moral  and  spiritual  kingdom  are  not  once  adverted  to  in  all  the  apoc 
ryphal  books.  In  all  there  are  not  half  a  dozen  passages,  which  even 
advert  to  the  subject  of  a  future  deliverance ;  none  to  a  specific  Deliverer. 
A  general  indistinct  belief  of  future  prosperity,  in  respect  to  Jerusalem 
and  the  Jewish  commonwealth,  with  the  perpetuity  of  the  Davidic  race 
of  kings,  is  all  that  we  can  gather  from  the  tout  ensemble  of  the  Apocrypha. 
Where  then  is  the  advanced  view  of  the  Messianic  reign,  with  which 
Daniel  is  said  to  harmonize  ?  So  far  from  this,  all  the  spirit  and  soul  of 
the  earlier  prophets  is  entirely  evaporated,  and  we  have  in  their  room 
only  the  tame  surmisings  of  a  narrow  Jewish  spirit,  disclosing  only  the 
expectation  of  worldly  civil  preeminence  and  prosperity.  And  while 
Lengerke  himself  alleges,  that  Daniel  above  all  Heb.  prophets  has  de 
veloped  a  personal  Messiah,  divine  and  human,  he  cannot  find  a  trace  of 
such  a  Messiah  in  any  or  all  the  apocryphal  books  put  together.  Yet 
he  asserts  that  Daniel  is  a  late  book,  because  his  Messianic  views  are  the 
same  as  those  in  the  Apocrypha.  In  this  only  is  he  in  the  right,  viz. 
that  the  Sibylline  Oracles  of  the  Maccabaean  period  contain  like  views. 
But,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  413  above), these  compositions  contain  the  most 
indubitable  marks  of  borrowing  from  Daniel ;  and  so  they  prove  the 
higher  age  and  credit  of  that  book. 

(b)  'The  views  of  the  resurrection  and  general  judgment  that  follow 
the  Messianic  development,'  Lengerke  says,  '  are  too  definite  and  specific 
to  belong  to  an  earlier  period.' 

If  this  proves  anything  to  the  purpose,  it  must  be  by  virtue  of  assum 
ing,  that  the  Daniel  of  the  exile  could  have  had  no  views  in  advance  of  his 
brother-prophets  who  had  preceded  him.  But  how  is  this  to  be  shown  ? 
When  it  is  admitted  that  his  Messianic  views  are  much  more  specific, 
and  more  catholic  in  spirit,  than  those  found  elsewhere,  how  is  it  unrea 
sonable  to  suppose,  that  his  views  on  the  subjects  just  named  may  be  in 
advance  of  his  predecessors'  views  ?  For  other  considerations,  I  refer 
the  reader  to  the  Comm.  on  Dan.  12:  1 — 3. 


472  §  7.    OBJECTIONS  AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

(c)  *  But  the  angelology  of  the  book  is  altogether  in  the  form  in  which 
the  Jews  received  it  from  the  later  Parsism.  Here  is  first  found  a  dis 
tinction  between  the  higher  and  lower  angels  ;  also  the  doctrine  of  guar 
dian  angels ;  and  moreover  the  names  of  individual  angels.' 

Lengerke  has  not  ventured  on  the  assertion  (often  made  by  some), 
that  the  whole  angelology  of  the  0.  Test,  comes  from  the  Parsis.  As 
nearly  every  book  of  the  Heb.  Scriptures  is  full  of  the  mention  of  an 
gels,  it  would  be  difficult  to  render  this  plausible.  But  the  distinctions, 
he  says,  are  from  the  Parsis.  And  is  this  really  so  ?  Who  are  the  Sera 
phim,  the  presence-angels,  in  Isa.  vi.  ?  Gesenius  acknowledges  these  to 
be  angel-chieftains,  Comm.  on  v.  2.  Ex.  32:  34  speaks  of  a  special  guar 
dian  angel,  comp.  33:  2.  Deut.  33:  2  speaks  of  ten  thousand  holy  ones  in 
the  retinue  of  Jehovah.  In  Josh.  5:  14,  a  captain  of  the  Lord's  host 
appears  to  Joshua.  Apparently  the  same  leader  reappears  in  Judg.  2: 1. 
In  Job  i.  ii.,  the  angels  assemble  on  special  occasions,  before  the  throne  of 
God,  to  render  an  account  of  their  respective  watch-stations.  In  Job  33: 
23,  an  angel  interpreter  appears  as  the  monitor  of  men.  In  1  Kings  22: 
19 — 23,  an  angel  of  chastisement  appears  before  the  Lord.  In  Ps.  68: 17, 
the  chariots  of  God  are  twenty  thousand,  even  thousands  of  angels. 
What  is  more  than  all,Ezekiel  and  Zechariah  introduce  angel-interpreters, 
in  the  same  way  as  Daniel,  being  his  contemporaries.  Does  this  prove 
the  late  origin  of  their  works  also  ?  As  to  the  names  of  good  angels,  I 
grant  that  these  are  peculiar  to  Daniel ;  but  in  Job  and  in  Zechariah 
we  have  a  Satan  among  the  evil  angels.  If  it  be  said  that  this  is  no 
proper  name,  but  only  an  appellative,  cannot  the  same  be  said  of  Gabriel 
and  Michael  ?  Both  are  of  appellative  significance.  But  what  is  still 
more  against  Lengerke  is,  that  no  one  has  yet  shown  that  the  Babylo 
nians  or  Persians  entertained  the  idea  of  national  guardian  angels.  In 
the  Zend-Avesta  one  may  seek  in  vain  for  it.  He  will  find  merely,  that 
Bahman,  the  first  of  the  Amshaspands,  is  a  subordinate  to  Ormusd, 
in  watching  over  the  good  in  general ;  but  of  national  angels  there  is 
not  a  word. 

Indeed,  if  any  one  will  carefully  go  through  the  Zend-Avesta,  he  will 
find  the  whole  system  of  Zoroaster  as  to  Amshaspands  and  Izeds,  as  well 
as  to  Devs  and  Archdevs,  to  differ  so  widely  from  the  Heb.  angelology, 
that  derivation  of  the  latter  from  the  former  is  out  of  fair  question.  And 
finally,  the  idea  that  the  rigid  Jews  would  borrow  from  Heathenism  and 
Dualism,  and  introduce  this  into  their  own  Scriptures,  is  one  that  a  sober 
man,  well  acquainted  with  their  history,  cannot  readily  admit  —  cannot 
at  all  admit. 

(10)'  The  dogmatic  ascetic  views  of  Daniel  savor  strongly  of  Pharisaism. 


§  7.  OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE   GENUINENESS.  473 

Excessive  representations  about  the  efficacy  of  prayer  are  manifest,  in 
2:  18.  6:  11.  9:  3.  10:  2.  Revelations  even  are  made  to  him  in  conse 
quence  of  prayer,  chap.  ix.  Then  we  have  ascetic  abstinence  from  pro 
fane  food,  1:  12 ;  a  three  weeks' fasting,  10:  2 ;  prayer  three  times  a  day, 
6:  1 1 ;  and  seeking  and  curiously  prying  into  (griibeln,  grubbing  into) 
former  prophecies.' 

Subjective,  I  trow,  rather  than  objective,  are  most  of  these  objections. 
Lengerke,  it  would  seem,  deems  all  special  faith  in  prayer  as  Pharisaism ; 
all  belief  in  an  answer  to  prayer,  as  superstitious  credulity ;  all  strict 
conscientious  obedience  to  the  plain  and  express  laws  of  Moses  concern 
ing  unclean  food,  even  on  the  part  of  a  Jew,  as  foolish  ascetic  severity ; 
and  searching  with  eagerness  into  prophecies,  which  were  of  the  highest 
possible  interest  to  a  Jewish  patriot  mourning  over  the  exile  of  his  nation, 
is  an  incredible  and  unprecedented  affair.  Unfortunate  prophet !  If  he 
complies  with  heathen  customs,  even  so  far  as  to  belong  to  the  order  of 
the  Magi,  then  forsooth,  he  is  no  Jew,  much  less  a  Daniel;  and  if  he 
adheres  with  unshaken  constancy  and  fidelity  to  the  laws  of  his  country 
and  his  God,  he  is  a  bigot  and  a  Pharisee.  It  is  difficult,  amidst  all  this, 
to  see  what  course  Daniel  could  have  steered,  in  order  to  satisfy  Neology. 

For  the  rest,  I  have  said  all  that  I  wish  to  say,  in  commenting  on  the 
passages  to  which  appeal  is  made. 

(11)  '  Certain  representations  in  the  book  lead  us  down  to  the  latest, 
i.  e.  the  Maccabaean  period,  as  the  time  of  its  composition.     The  author 
unwarily  speaks  of  the  prophets  as  far  distant  from  him,'  9:  6,  10,  24. 

But  in  these  passages  there  is  not  a  word  about  the  antiquity  of  the 
prophets,  excepting  merely  that  such  are  alluded  to  as  addressed  the 
Jews  previous  to  the  exile.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  words  be  rigidly 
construed,  they  imply  that  Daniel  was  himself  a  hearer  of  the  prophets 
alluded  to :  "  We  have  not  hearkened  to  thy  servants,  the  prophets,  who 
spake  in  thy  name."  In  reality  I  suppose  this  to  be  a  mere  xo/Voxy/£  in 
speaking ;  but  at  all  events,  there  is  not  the  remotest  ground  for  any 
supposition  such  as  Lengerke  makes. 

(12)  'The  writer  of  the  book,  although    studious    of  concealment, 
betrays  at  times  the  Maccabaean  period.     Thus  in  9:  19  he  says:  "Ac 
complish  and  delay  not."     Here  the  writer  shows  that  he  partook  of  the 
expectation  of  the  Maccabaean  period,  viz.  that  the  Messiah  was  imme 
diately  to   come.     The   writer  reckons  time,  moreover,  according  to 
Sabbath-years,  9:  24 ;  and  so  did  the  Maccabees.     The  temple  is  also 
supposed  to  be  extant,  9:  24. 

But  what  is  it,  in  9:  19,  that  is  not  to  be  delayed  ?  Simply  compas 
sion  on  the  desolated  and  ruined  holy  city ;  see  v.  18.  There  is  not  a 

40* 


474  §  7.    OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

word  here  of  the  Messiah.  Then  where  does  the  writer  get  an  account 
of  the  Maccabaean  reckoning  by  Sabbath-years  ?  He  does  not  tell  us ; 
and  I  have  sought  in  vain  for  it.  And  even  if  it  be  found,  how  can  it 
be  proved  that  this  mode  of  reckoning  first  commenced  so  late  as  that 
period  ?  Of  the  extant  temple,  moreover,  in  9:  24, 1  find  no  traces.  I 
find  only,  that  when  the  Messiah  has  come,  he  will,  as  the  great  high 
priest,  anoint  a  Holy  of  Holies  to  be  consecrated  to  his  service.  Paul 
was  of  the  same  opinion,  Heb.  7:  20,  26.  8:  1,  6.  9:  11 — 14.  And  when 
Leng.  says  :  "  Dan.  9:  8  shows  that  the  book  does  not  stand  on  a  historical 
basis ;"  the  reply  is,  that  this  passage  merely  represents  Daniel  as  con 
fessing,  that  the  kings,  princes,  and  fathers  of  the  Jews  had  sinned,  and 
ought  to  be  penitent  for  it.  Is  there,  then,  no  historical  basis  for  this  ? 

(13)  'The  writer  lets  drop  his  mask,  when  he  makes  such  frequent 
assertions  that  his  words  are  true  ;'  e.  g.  2:  45.  8:  26.  10:  1.  11:  2. 

But  are  not  such  assurances  frequent  in  Isa.,  Jer.,  Ezekiel,  and  other 
prophets,  and  especially  in  the  Apocalypse  ?  And  how  often  does  the 
Saviour  preface  his  discourses  with  dfi^v,  d^v,  and  declare  to  the  Jews 
and  to  his  apostles,  that  his  words  are  true.  It  is  needless  to  accumulate 
references  here,  to  what  is  in  the  memory  of  every  intelligent  and  careful 
reader.  In  Apoc.  1:  7.  19:  9.  21:  5.  22:  6,  will  be  found  passages  suffi 
cient  for  the  purpose  of  comparison. 

Lengerke  further  asserts,  that  '  the  writer  has  betrayed  himself,  by 
remarking  that  his  oracles  must  be  sealed  and  secret,  until  the  time  of 
fulfilment,'  8:  26.  12:  4.  —  But  I  do  not  see  how  sealing  and  secreting 
would  be  to  his  purpose,  in  gaining  credit  for  his  book.  If  this  is  to  be 
entirely  secreted,  then  his  object  in  publishing  it  must  be  defeated.  Or 
did  he  expect,  on  his  mere  pretension  to  have  discovered  an  ancient 
writing,  to  satisfy  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  of  its  genuineness  by  having  it 
sealed  up  ?  No  ;  Leng.  has  mistaken  the  design  of  sealing  in  both  cases, 
which  is  not  for  concealment,  but  for  safe  preservation.  Prophecies  thus 
carefully  kept  could  not  be  tampered  with. 

(14)  « The  writer's  repeated  eulogies  on  himself  can  never  be  supposed 
to  have  come  from  the  real  ancient  Daniel.' 

But  why  ?  '  Because  regard  to  modesty  forbids  us  to  suppose  this  of 
such  a  man,'  is  the  answer.  Very  well ;  then  if  the  case  is  so  plain  and 
striking,  how  came  the  shrewd,  cunning,  sharp-sighted  forger  in  question, 
(as  neologists  now  and  then  allow  him  to  be),  not  to  know  better  than  to 
put  such  suspicious  things  into  his  book,  which  would  so  obviously  betray 
him  ?  He  could  not,  if  objectors  are  in  the  right,  have  had  but  a  small 
portion  of  the  shrewdness  and  cunning  that  are  often  attributed  to  him. 
But  bating  all  this,  how  much  real  foundation  is  there  for  the  allegation, 


§  7.  OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE  GENUINENESS.  475 

that  he  is  taxable  with  excessive  eulogy  ?  In  1:  19,  20,  Daniel  includes 
his  three  friends  as  well  as  himself,  when  he  says  they  were  found  greatly 
superior  to  the  magicians  and  astrologers,  in  matters  of  wisdom  and 
understanding.  This  was  assuming  no  very  extravagant  position.  They 
were  pretenders  in  recondite  matters,  and  nothing  more.  But  the  wis 
dom  of  these  Hebrews,  whatever  it  is,  is  all  attributed  (v.  17)  to  the 
special  gift  of  God,  and  not  to  their  own  talents.  When  before  Nebu 
chadnezzar,  and  about  to  disclose  the  king's  dream,  Daniel  says  expressly, 
that  this  power  comes  not  from  any  superior  wisdom  in  him,  but  only 
because  God  has  willed  that  this  secret  shall  be  revealed,  2:  29,  30.  In 
5:  11,  12,  13,  what  is  said  of  his  wisdom,  is  said  by  the  queen-mother  of 
Belshazzar,  and  not  by  him,  and  it  is  said  to  induce  the  king  to  send  for 
Daniel  and  seek  his  counsel.  It  is  related  plainly  to  the  honor  of  God, 
and  not  of  himself.  What  is  said  in  6:  4,  relates  merely  to  his  official 
conduct,  in  respect  to  which  his  envious  fellow-courtiers  could  find  no 
ground  of  inculpation  before  the  king.  In  9:  23  and  10:  11,  the  assur 
ance  that  he  is^  greatly  beloved  comes  from  the  angel,  in  order  to  comfort 
and  strengthen  him  when  he  was  sinking.  And  what  is  there  of  vanity 
and  extravagance  in  all  this  ?  If  we  desire  to  see  Daniel  in  his  real 
attitude  of  mind  with  respect  to  himself,  we  must  look  at  him  in  chap, 
ix.  and  x.  Throughout  his  book  there  is  unequivocal  evidence  of  deco 
rum  and  deep  humility.  He  never  claims  either  praise  or  reward.  And 
why  should  he  not  be  permitted  to  relate  kind  words  addressed  to  him, 
as  well  as  Moses  be  permitted  to  say,  that  he  was  meek  above  all  other 
men  ?  Num.  12:  3.  Why  not,  as  well  as  Paul  to  say,  that  he  was  "a 
wise  master-builder  ?"  1  Cor.  3:  10.  Paul,  like  Daniel,  attributes  all  to 
the  grace  of  God.  What  forbids  his  magnifying  that  grace  even  when 
extended  to  himself?  In  2  Cor.  3:  5,  he  speaks  of  his  sufficiency ;  but 
he  attributes  it  all  to  God.  He  tells  us  that  he  was  caught  up  into  the 
third  heaven  (2  Cor.  12:  2),  and  heard  unspeakable  words ;  yet  he  is 
careful  to  say,  that  he  glories  not  in  himself,  but  in  an  enraptured  Paul. 
John  tells  us  of  "  a  disciple,  whom  Jesus  loved,  and  who  leaned  on  his 
bosom"  (John  13:  23),  evidently  meaning  himself.  He  tells  us  again 
(21:  21)  of  the  same  beloved  disciple,  who  leaned  on  his  Master's  bosom. 
Was  John  assuming  and  vain  ?  Finally,  is  there  no  difference  between 
a  man  who  is  conscious  of  divine  illumination,  and  one  who  is  not  ? 
May  not  the  former  speak  truly,  yea  modestly  of  the  fact,  and  yet,  when 
he  does  this  to  exalt  the  grace  of  God,  be  acquitted  of  vanity  and  of 
self-gratulation  ?  I  trust  this  may  be  so.  I  will  not  bring  into  compari 
son  the  claims  which  Jesus  makes  for  himself,  for  he  spake  as  never  man 
spake,  and  was  what  never  man  was.  Truth  obliged  him  to  speak  as 


476  §  7.   OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

he  did.  But  is  not  the  testimony  concerning  Daniel  true  ?  So  thought 
Ezekiel,  who  ranks  him  with  Noah  and  Job.  So  thought  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  who  place  him  among  the  prophets.  So  thought  John,  who 
has  made  his  work  the  basis-model  of  his  own  Apocalypse.  So  thought 
the  Jewish  doctors  who  put  him  into  one  scale,  and  all  the  wise  men  of 
the  world  into  the  other,  and  made  him  outweigh  them  all.  So  thought 
Josephus,  who  places  him  at  the  very  head  of  all  the  prophets.  So 
thought  the  Christian  Fathers,  one  and  all.  And  so  all  the  church  of 
God  have  thought,  until  Neology  came  forth  to  correct  a  mistaken  world, 
and  chastise  it  for  its  credulity. 

(15)  'In  Daniel  is  one  and  the  same  uniform  tone  throughout.  In 
every  paragraph  the  same  things  happen  over  and  over  to  Daniel  and 
his  friends.  The  Magi  are  at  their  wits  end  and  stupid,  that  Daniel 
may  have  the  chance  of  surpassing  them.  So  is  it  in  chap.  ii.  iv.  v. 
The  three  friends  of  Daniel,  moreover,  are  thrown  into  the  furnace, 
that  an  angel  may  interpose  in  their  behalf.  So  is  it  with  Daniel  in 
the  lions'  den,  vi.  Daniel  fasts  (ix.  x.),  that  an  angel  may  intervene. 
Daniel  every  where  gets  new  honors  for  himself,  2:  48,  49.  3:  30.  5: 
29.  .6:  29.  Chapters  ii — vi.  all  conclude  with  praises  of  the  Jewish 
God,  wrung  from  heathen  despots.  All  the  book,  from  chap.  vii.  to  the 
end,  has  but  one  exitus  and  one  object,  viz.  the  death  of  Antiochus  and 
the  commencement  of  the  Messianic  reign.  The  heathen  kings  all 
issue  edicts  commanding  that  Jehovah  be  universally  worshipped.  And 
all  this  is  said  over  and  over,  in  nearly  the  same  words  and  expressions/ 
So  Lengerke,  p.  Ixxiv.  seq. 

I  feel  the  difficuly  of  the  task,  when  undertaking  to  answer  declama 
tion  instead  of  argument.  Supposing  the  facts  related  in  Daniel  to  be 
true,  how  could  Daniel  do  otherwise  than  he  has  done  ?  The  Magi 
were  impostors,  when  they  claimed  the  power  of  predicting  and  in 
terpreting  dreams.  The  simple  story  of  their  failure  and  disgrace  is 
told.  Is  there  any  thing  to  be  inculpated  here  ?  God  preserves  his 
faithful  servants  in  the  midst  of  dangers ;  is  there  any  thing  in  this 
which  is  incredible  to  any  one  who  does  not,  like  Lengerke,  deny  the 
possibility  of  miracles  ?  As  to  angelic  interposition,  if  the  mention  of 
this  be  evidence  of  a  forged  book,  then  is  all  the  rest  of  the  Old  Test., 
and  the  whole  of  the  New,  to  be  regarded  as  forged.  That  all  the 
narrations  conclude  with  ascribing  glory  to  God,  is  an  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  book,  instead  of  the  contrary.  The  true  Daniel 
was  just  such  a  man  as  would  do  this.  That  heathen  despots  are  com 
pelled  to  praise  the  God  of  Israel,  was  a  matter  of  serious  moment  to 
the  poor  exiled  Jews,  who  were  at  their  mercy.  Was  there  no  impor- 


§  7.   OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS.  477 

tant  end  to  be  answered  in  softening  and  humbling  the  hearts  of  kings, 
in  whose  power  the  lives  and  fortunes  of  the  Hebrew  nation  were  ? 
Lengerke  can  see  nothing  in  all  this,  except  Daniel's  exalting  himself, 
and  the  Jews,  and  their  national  God  (Jehovah),  at  the  expense  of 
the  poor  heathen.  The  divinities  of  the  Chaldees  seem  to  him  to  be 
as  good,  and  to  have  as  valid  claims,  as  the  God  of  the  Jews.  But 
Daniel  was  of  a  different  mind ;  and  so,  as  I  hope,  will  most  of  his 
readers  be.  As  to  sameness  in  the  writer  of  the  book  —  the  echoing 
and  reechoing  of  the  same  thing  in  nearly  the  same  language  —  nothing 
can  be  farther  from  the  truth,  than  such  a  charge.  Read  chap,  ii — vi., 
and  then  say,  whether  any  two  of  these  narrations  are  alike.  A  greater 
diversity  of  circumstances  can  no  where  be  found,  in  events  which  have 
one  common  culminating  point,  viz.  a  display  of  the  supremacy,  glory, 
and  mercy  of  Jehovah.  Go  into  the  prophecies  of  this  book.  Every 
one  is  different  from  all  its  associates.  Chap.  ii.  exhibits  symbols  en 
tirely  different  from  all  the  others.  Chap.  vii.  has  monsters  altogether 
sui  generis.  Chap.  viii.  has  another  set  of  symbols,  entirely  differing 
from  these.  Chap.  xi.  drops  symbol  altogether,  and  becomes  (as  one 
might  almost  say)  simple  narrative,  or  takes  the  form  of  mere  historical 
prose.  The  passage  in  9:  24 — 27  is  toto  coelo  different  from  all  other  parts 
of  the  book.  While  the  same  hand  is  every  where  plainly  cognoscible  in 
the  coloring  of  the  style,  yet  the  variety  in  description  is  as  great  as 
we  can  well  conceive  it  could  be,  where  the  same  great  events  are 
described  in  all.  "  A  tame  dull  sameness,"  in  such  a  book  as  this  ? 
We  might  as  well  accuse  Isaiah  of  sameness,  when  he  prophesies  so 
often  concering  Assyria  and  Babylon ;  or  Jeremiah,  or  Ezekiel,  when 
they  say  so  much,  and  speak  so  often,  respecting  the  ruin  of  the  Jewish 
State  and  capital.  No ;  there  is  scarcely  a  book  in  the  Old  Test.,  that 
is  more  free  from  sameness,  or  from  tameness.  A  veritable  witling  —  a 
great  bungler  —  he  must  have  been  who  wrote  this  book,  if  Lengerke's 
accusations  are  true.  But  this  unsparing  critic  should  have  taken  better 
care,  and  not  been  off  his  guard  so  as  to  attribute  to  the  Pseudo- 
Daniel  so  much  shrewdness  and  tact  as  he  has.  After  all,  however,  no 
book  is  read  with  more  eagerness  than  Daniel,  when  a  reader  is  intelli 
gent  enough  to  understand  him ;  and  one  simple  and  considerate  peru 
sal  of  it,  with  a  candid  and  serious  mind,  will  scatter  to  the  four  winds 
such  objections  as  those  which  we  have  now  been  canvassing. 

(16)  'An  independent  prophet,  like  the  pretended  Daniel,  could 
never  have  busied  himself  in  groping  after  the  meaning  of  almost  con 
temporary  prophecy,  [that  of  Jer.  respecting  the  70  years] ;  nor  did 
any  one  before  the  time  of  Ezra  think  of  interpreting  the  prophets.5 


478  §  7.    OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

We  have  had  this  same  thing  once  before  to  deal  with,  (p.  473) ; 
but  the  number  of  times  that  a  testimony  is  repeated,  seems  to  add 
corresponding  increase  to  its  weight  and  value,  in  the  view  of  Len- 
gerke.  The  idea  that  Ezra  was  the  first  man,  who  ever  thought  of 
interpreting  the  prophets,  is  novel.  We  have  usually  supposed,  that  so 
many  as  thought  it  a  duty  to  read  them,  endeavored  at  least  to  interpret 
them,  i.  e.  they  gave  some  particular  sense  to  the  words  of  prophecy. 
And  as  to  Ezra's  new  employment  or  discovery,  I  do  not  know  where 
to  find  any  account  of  it.  I  find  in  Neh.  8:  1 — 3,  that  Ezra  brought 
the  law  of  Moses  before  the  people,  and  read  and  expounded  it;  but 
not  a  word  is  said  about  the  prophets.  If  any  more  need  be  said  on 
the  objection  before  us,  it  has  already  been  said,  (ut  supra).  Does  it 
not  sound  strangely  in  our  ears,  to  hear  Daniel  taxed  with  singular 
conduct,  with  superstition,  because  he  read  Jeremiah's  predictions  con 
cerning  the  Babylonish  exile  with  the  highest  interest  and  keenest 
scrutiny  ?  Unfortunate  man  !  we  are  tempted  to  exclaim  again ;  if  he 
does  not  read  the  prophets,  he  is  no  Jew ;  if  he  does  read  them  with 
anxious  scrutiny,  then  he  is  a  bigot  and  an  enthusiast. 

(17)  'If  the   book   is   authentic,  it  must   have   been  written   by  a 
Daniel  contemporary  with  Ezek.,  and  the  same  that  Ezek.  mentions  in 
14:  14 — 20.  28:  3.     But  as  the  writer  has  so  often  quoted  Ezekiel,  the 
supposition  of  identity  with   the  ancient    Daniel  is    directly  contra 
dictory.' 

But  this  contradiction  I  can  not  see.  How  can  it  prove  that  the 
Daniel  of  Ezekiel's  time  could  not  write  the  book  that  bears  his  name,, 
because  this  book  quotes  Ezekiel  ?  What  hindered  his  quoting  a  con 
temporaneous  writer,  if  he  had  occasion  to  do  so  ?  I  do  not  and  can 
not  see  the  point  of  Lengerke's  argument.  However,  as  we  have  had 
the  subject  of  quoting  Ezekiel  upon  the  tapis  before  (p.  453),  it  is  un 
necessary  to  discuss  it  again.  If  either  has  quoted,  (which  I  see  no 
evidence  of),  then  it  seems  more  probable  that  Ezekiel  is  the  borrower. 
This  would  not  be  strange,  after  what  he  has  said  of  Daniel.  The 
reader  will  hardly  fail  to  notice  how  industriously  arguments  are  multi 
plied,  even  by  the  repetition  of  idem  per  idem.  Lengerke  seems  to 
adopt  the  maxim :  "  Non  refert  vim,  sed  multum." 

(18)  'Most  convincing  of  all  that  the  book  is  not  genuine,  is  the 
character  of  its  predictions  in  regard  to  dejiniteness.    The  prophets  of 
the   Old  Test.,  when  they  speak  of  the  future,  give   only  hints  and 
generic  descriptions.     Whenever  they  do  individualize,  it  is  in  a  mere 
poetical  way ;  and  those  few  predictions  which  are  special,  are  either 
not  fulfilled  at  all,  or  are  so  only  in  part.     Of  such  an  indistinct  and 


§  7.   OBJECTIONS  AGAINST   THE   GENUINENESS.  479 

general  nature  are  all  the  other  Messianic  predictions.  They  usually 
describe  nothing  more  than  a  flourishing  political  condition.  Isa.  vi. 
predicts  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  people  by  the  Assyrians ;  but  it 
happened  only  by  the  Chaldeans.  In  Isa.  8:  4  and  17:  1 — 3,  the  con 
temporaneous  fall  of  Damascus  and  Samaria  is  predicted,  and  that  this 
will  take  place  in  65  years.  Neither  of  these  predictions  was  fulfilled. 
Isa.  xiii.  and  xiv.  predict  the  destruction  of  Babylon  by  the  Medes  and 
Persians,  and  the  slaying  of  the  last  Babylonish  king  when  the  city 
was  taken.  Neither  happened ;  for  Cyrus  spared  both  the  city  and  its 
king.  Isa.  xxix.  predicts  a  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Assyrians ;  but 
chap,  xxxvi.  xxxvii.  show  us  the  contrary.  Nearly  all  the  prophets 
foretell  the  utter  destruction  of  the  Edomites,  (see  Isa.  chap,  xxxiv. 
xliii.  and  Jer.  chap,  xlix.,  also  Obadiah) ;  yet  this  did  not  take  place, 
for  the  Edomites  ravaged  Palestine  during  the  Babylonish  exile,  and 
Herod,  the  king  of  Judea,  sprung  from  them.  In  Isa.  xxiii.  and  Ezek. 
xxvi.  xxviii.  the  seizure  of  Tyre  by  Nebuchadnezzar  is  predicted; 
but  Nebuchadnezzar  marched  to  Egypt,  and  left  the  matter  of  the  seige 
unaccomplished.  According  to  Isa.  xl.  xlv.  xlvi.,  after  the  return  from 
exile,  Jerusalem  will  be  built  up  and  adorned  in  the  most  magnificent 
manner,  and  all  nations  will  go  up  to  it,  and  offer  their  richest  presents. 
Was  there  any  thing  like  to  this,  as  a  matter  of  fact?  Hos.  9:  3.  11:  5 
declares  that  the  ten  tribes  shall  go  into  Egypt  as  captives ;  a  thing 
that  never  happened.  In  fact,  in  all  cases  where  seemingly  future 
events  actually  take  place,  the  alleged  predictions  are  spurious  and 
written  post  eventum,  or  a  wrong  exegesis  is  put  upon  them,  in  order  to 
make  them  correspond  with  historical  facts;  e.  g.  Jer.  1.  li.;  and  for 
what  may  be  done  by  exegesis  to  make  out  fulfilment,  see  Hengst.  on 
Zech.  9:  1 — 8.  If  neither  of  these  principles  will  solve  any  particular 
case,  then  the  pretended  prophet  does  nothing  more  than  describe  what 
is  present  before  his  vision ;  as  in  Isa.  xiii.  xiv.  and  xxi.  1 — 10.  Of 
what  concerns  foreign  heathen  nations,  in  their  mutual  relations  and 
strifes,  the  Hebrew  prophets  say  nothing ;  so  that  Daniel  is  a  perfect 
ana'S,  teybiiwov  among  them,  on  any  other  ground  than  that  the  book 
was  written  post  eventum.  Indeed  this  is  the  only  possible  way  in 
which  it  could  be  written.'  Thus  Leng.  §  14. 

Here  again  I  am  puzzled  to  know  the  drift  of  the  argument.  Isaiah, 
and  all  the  prophets  besides  Daniel,  have  predicted  things,  it  is  said, 
that  never  came  to  pass.  Be  it  so  then,  for  the  sake  of  argument. 
How  does  this  prove  the  book  of  Daniel  to  be  spurious  ?  This  book, 
it  is  said,  has  predicted  things  in  the  same  manner  as  the  others  ;  e.  g. 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  immediately  after  the  death  of 


480  §  7.    OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE  GENUINENESS. 

J  Antiochus.  But  allowing  the  correctness  of  this  statement,  what  bear 
ing  has  it  on  the  genuineness  of  the  book  ?  If  the  other  prophets  did 
but  guess,  and  if  they  sometimes  failed  to  guess  rightly,  yet  the  fact 
that  they  wrote  the  books  assigned  to  them  by  universal  consent,  is  not  at 
all  disproved  thereby.  Now  Daniel's  case  is  just  the  same.  If  he  guessed 
wrong,  it  does  not  prove  that  he  did  not  write  the  book  which  bears  his 
name.  Whether  his  predictions  were  fulfilled  or  not,  has  no  concern 
with  the  question  whether  he  wrote  the  book ;  excepting  that,  in  case 
of  actual  fulfilment,  it  would  prove  that  some  prophetic  man,  at  all 
events,  wrote  the  book.  According  to  Lengerke  himself,  then,  Daniel 
stands  on  as  good  ground  as  any  of  the  other  prophets. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  it  becomes  convenient,  Daniel's  definiteness 
and  certainty  Dr  exactness  is  made  the  ground  of  confident  conclusion, 
that  all  was  written  post  eventum.  Why  ?  Because  a  miracle  is  im 
possible  ;  and  prediction  in  its  proper  sense  would  be  a  miracle.  The 
interposition  of  a  Pseudo-Daniel,  theji,  becomes  a  matter  of  necessity, 
and  of  course  must  be  admitted.  But  this  process  of  logic  we  have 
examined  in  the  preceding  pages,  and  therefore  need  not  repeat  the 
examination  here. 

As  to  that  part  of  Lengerke's  objection,  which  asserts  that  predic 
tions  concerning  the  future  are  always  clothed  in  general  and  indefinite 
expressions,  conveying  no  idea  of  any  thing  definite  and  tangible,  the 
answer  is  short  and  easy.  Jeremiah  (in  chap.  xxv.  xxix.)  predicts  70 
years'  exile.  Bleek,  Lengerke,  and  others  say,  that  this  is  only  a  mere 
round  number.  But  Zech.  1:  12  and  Ezra  1:  1,  both  written  after  the 
exile,  when  it  must  of  necessity  have  been  exactly  known  how  long  it 
had  lasted,  declare  that  it  had  continued  70  years.  Besides,  is  not  the 
time  definite  in  Isa.  7:  14 — 16;  8:  1 — 4;  16:  14,  three  years  for  the 
crushing  of  the  Moabites ;  17:  14,  destruction  of  the  Assryian  host  be 
tween  evening  and  morning ;  20:  3,  three  years  for  the  subjugation  of 
Egypt  and  Ethiopia;  21:  16,  exactly  one  year  for  the  humbling  of 
Kedar;  38:  15.  (comp.  2  K.  20:  6),  life  of  Hezekiah  prolonged  15 
years.  To  these,  others  might  be  added ;  but  I  deem  it  unnecessary. 
Lengerke  asserts  that  most  of  these  predictions  failed,  and  those  which 
did  not,  were  written  post  eventum.  Was  Jeremiah's  prediction,  then, 
of  70  years'  exile,  written  post  eventum  ?  If  so  then  he  must  have  lived 
some  115  years,  and  have  written  after  this.  Comp.  Jer.  1:  2  and  Ezra 
1:1.  But  enough.  I  might  follow  all  his  assertions  as  to  failure  in 
the  fulfilment  of  definite  predictions,  by  showing  that  he  has  either  clone 
violence  to  the  exegesis,  or  presented  a  distorted  view  of  historical  facts. 
But  this  would  lead  me  quite  away  from  my  present  object.  The  thing 


§  7.    OBJECTIONS   AGAINST  THE    GENUINENESS.  481 

moreover,  has  already  been  done  by  others ;  and  it  will  be  easy,  either 
in  Calvin,  or  Vitringa,  or  Hengstenberg,  to  find  a  refutation  of  such 
assertions. 

Truly  I  do  not  wonder,  that  those  who  reject  4he  possibility  of  pre 
diction  should  be  so  anxious  to  show  the  lateness  of  Daniel's  book.  It 
is  so  definite  in  many  cases,  so  graphic,  and  in  chap.  xi.  so  historically 
minute  and  true,  that  all  possibility  of  being  explained  away  is  out  of 
question.  And  hence  the  confident  and  often  repeated  assertions  of  its 
being  written  post  eventum.  But  as  this  whole  subject  has  already 
been  discussed,  it  need  not  be  again  repeated  here. 

(18)  '  In  no  other  book  of  the  Old  Testament  is  any  nation  or  king 
dom  ever  spoken  of,  which  did  not  exist  at  the  time  of  the  prophet.  In 
Daniel,  future  kingdoms  and  nations  are  brought  before  our  view  in 
abundance ;  a  thing  impossible  before  history  had  actually  developed 
them/ 

Yet  in  Num.  24:  14 — 24,  in  Balaam's  prophecy,  there  seems  to  be  a 
distant  and  then  unknown  nation  in  view.  Ezek.  (chap,  xxxviii.  xxxix.) 
brings  to  view,  in  Gog  and  Magog,  the  incursion  of  nations  then  seem 
ingly  unknown.  At  all  events,  the  fifth  kingdom  in  Daniel,  viz.  that 
which  is  named  the  Messianic  reign  elsewhere,  and  which  is  future  and 
distant,  is  often  spoken  of.  Lengerke  avers,  however,  that  the  prophets 
had  very  erroneous  views  as  to  the  time  of  this,  and  that  they  expecte  d 
it  after  a  short  period.  But  this  is  a  result  of  his  own  special  exegesis- 
In  my  apprehension,  however,  it  is  not  of  much  moment  to  find  parallels 
here  in  other  prophets.  Who  of  all  these  prophets,  except  Daniel,  was 
called  to  disclose  the  state  of  the  Jews  after  their  return  from  exile,  and 
before  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah  ?  No  one  has  undertaken  it.  If 
Daniel  then  occupies  a  ground,  in  his  book,  which  is  not  occupied  by 
others,  why  should  it  be  strange  that  he  has  predicted  things  unlike 
what  is  found  in  other  prophets.  The  last  great  national  prophet  ha  d 
views  extending  beyond  those  of  his  predecessors.  His  situa 
fitted  him  for  it.  Hence  he  brings  dynasties  to  view,  as  yet  unknown . 
They  are  intimately  connected  with  the  chosen  people  of  God.  Hence 
he  was  commissioned  to  describe  them.  Who  now  can  show,  that  one 
prophet  may  not  have  had  different  and  more  extended  views  t  han 
another?  Who  shall  set  the  metes  and  bounds  of  individual  pro 
phecy  ?  There  is  the  book  of  Daniel,  at  all  events,  a  part  of  it 
written  almost  with  the  minuteness  of  historical  narrative.  If  it  was 
actually  written  during  the  exile,  then  it  certainly  contains  prediction. 
Whether  it  was  or  was  not  then  written,  is  a  question  of  course  depen 
dent  on  testimony  as  to  facts  —  and  it  is  altogether  a  mere  question  of 

41 


482  §  7.    OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

fact.  How  can  such  a  question  be  decided  by  an  a  priori  theory  ? 
Such  a  theory  is  irrelevant,  and  a  mere  petitio  principii. 

(19)  "  That  the  writer  lived  in  the  Maccabaean  age,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  he  every  where  represents  the  Messianic  reign  as  com 
mencing  immediately  after  the  death  of  Antiochus."  (p.  81  pref.). 

On  this  Lengerke  has  often  insisted,  in  his  commentary ;  and  yet  I 
have  never  been  able  to  see  any  force  in  this  argument.  According  to 
Lengerke,  the  writer  must  have  known  the  time  and  manner  of  Anti 
ochus'  death,  as  things  already  developed  in  fact  and  in  history.  Grant 
ing,  for  the  present,  that  the  author  did  live  at  that  late  period,  how 
came  he  by  an  expectation  of  the  immediate  appearance  of  the  Mes 
siah?  In  the  latter  part  of  the  very  year  of  Antiochus'  death,  Lysias, 
the  self-appointed  regent  of  Syria  and  guardian  of  Antiochus'  son, 
attacked  the  Jews  with  an  army  of  80,000  foot,  80  elephants,  and  a 
large  body  of  cavalry.  He  was  repulsed  ;  but  the  Syrian  garrison  at 
Jerusalem  held  out,  and  continually  annoyed  the  Jews  ;  and  in  a  short 
time  Lysias  rallied  and  sent  a  much  larger  army  than  before  against 
them.  Bethsura  was  taken,  and  Jerusalem  besieged.  Fortunately 
Philip,  the  real  regent  appointed  by  Antiochus,  at  that  time  invaded 
Syria  with  oriental  troops,  and  took  possession  of  Antioch.  In  order 
to  expel  him,  Lysias  was  obliged  to  make  peace  with  the  Jews,  and 
withdraw  his  army.  But  even  after  the  treaty  of  peace,  when  he  was 
admitted  into  Jerusalem,  he  caused  the  walls  of  the  city  to  be  thrown 
down.  In  161  B.  C.,  Demetrius  Soter  then  on  the  throne  of  Syria, 
sent  another  army  to  Palestine,  in  order  to  enforce  upon  the  Jews  the 
renegado  Alcimus  as  high  priest.  But  soon  afterwards  the  Jews  rallied 
under  Judas,  and  expelled  Alcimus.  He  fled  to  Syria,  and  excited  and 
persuaded  Demetrius  to  send  another  army,  in  order  to  establish  his 
official  dignity  as  high  priest.  It  was  sent,  commanded  by  Nicarior ; 
the  country  was  ravaged,  the  inhabitants  killed,  and  Judas  was  pro 
scribed.  But  Judas  collected  his  patriot  soldiers  around  him,  encoun 
tered  Nicanor,  slew  him  and  utterly  routed  and  dispersed  his  army. 
However,  only  a  few  months  of  peace  followed  ;  for  in  160  B.  C.,  another 
large  army  of  Demetrius  was  sent  against  Judea ;  and  it  was  in 
attacking  the  22,000  troops  of  which  it  was  composed,  that  Judas,  at 
the  head  of  only  800  men  lost  his  life.  Thus  much  for  the  first  three 
years  after  the  death  of  Antiochus  :  How  was  it  in  the  sequel? 

It  was  still  worse.  The  Syrian  army,  headed  by  Bacchides,  gave  full 
power  to  the  apostate  heathenized  Jews,  who  behaved  with  unbounded 
insolence  and  ferocity.  To  heighten  calamity  a  famine  occurred ;  the 
apostates  monopolized  all  the  provisions  of  the  land,  and  Bacchides 


§  7.    OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS.  483 

ravaged  the  country,  and  massacred  the  friends  of  Judas.  It  was  only 
after  the  death  of  Alcimus  (159  B.  C.),  that  the  country  had  a  good 
degree  of  quiet  for  nearly  two  years.  Again  in  158  B.  C.  Bacchides 
carne  up  against  the  Jews,  with  a  large  array.  The  war  did  not  last 
long  ;  but  all  the  treaties  and  truces  of  the  Jews  with  the  Syrian  despots 
were  utterly  disregarded,  whenever  it  appeared  to  be  for  their  interest 
to  disregard  them.  Thus  until  some  30  years  afterwards,  the  Jews  were 
subjected  continually  to  petty  vexations  and  occasionally  to  violent 
attacks.  It  was  riot  until  a  generation  had  passed  away,  not  until  the 
reign  of  John  Hyrcanus  (135 — 106  B.  C.),  that  peace  and  indepen 
dence  were  wholly  achieved. 

Such  are  the  exhibitions  of  history.  What  now  is  there  in  all  this, 
to  induce  any  man  in  his  senses  to  say,  that  the  Messianic  period  had 
come  ?  What  was  there  to  encourage  even  a  hope  of  it,  during  the 
whole  generation  that  succeeded  the  death  of  Antiochus  ?  Nothing  — 
if  possible,  less  than  nothing.  How  then  could  the  shrewd  Pseudo- 
Daniel  think  of  uniting  the  death  of  Antiochus  with  the  introduction  of 
the  Messianic  reign  ?  The  thing  is  absolutely  incredible.  No  man  of 
sense  could  say  that  such  a  period  was  ominous  of  an  immediate  Mes 
sianic  reign,  or  that  it  was  ushering  in  a  peaceful  and  universal  kingdom. 

Nothing  then  can  be  more  improbable,  than  Lengerke's  assertions  in 
regard  to  this  matter.  The  thing  is  critically  and  rationally  impossible. 

4  But,'  I  shall  be  asked,  '  is  it  not  matter  of  fact  that  Daniel  has  joined 
the  advent  of  the  fifth  or  Messianic  dynasty,  with  the  destruction  of  the 
last  of  the  other  four?  Yes,  I  reply,  prima  facie  his  words  would 
seem  to  import  this.  But  any  one  well  acquainted  with  the  tenor  of 
Old  Testament  prophecies,  will  find  nothing  strange  or  peculiar  in  this. 
It  is  merely  treading  in  the  steps  of  all  the  other  prophets.  Peter  has 
given  us  an  opening  in  respect  to  this  matter.  He  tells  us  (1  Pet. 
1:  11),  that  the  ancient  prophets  "sought  both  what  time,  and  also 
what  manner  of  time,  the  spirit  that  was  in  them  did  signify,  when  it 
testified  of  the  sufferings  and  the  glory  of  Christ."  In  other  words, 
their  curiosity  was  greatly  excited  to  know  when  Christ  would  come ; 
and  in  what  manner  he  would  develop  himself.  But  was  this  curiosity 
gratified?  Peter  has  told  us  (v.  12),  that  only  so  much  was  revealed 
as  would  show  that  a  distant  future  period  was  intended — "not  unto 
themselves,  but  unto  us,  they  ministered,  etc."  So  it  is  in  fact.  Not  one 
prophet  has  marked  the  tempus  in  quo.  We  have  seen  above,  that  the 
famous  period  of  70  weeks  accomplishes  no  such  object;  and  surely 
it  will  not  be  said  that  it  is  to  be  found  any  where  else,  if  not  found 
there. 


484  §  7.    OBJECTIONS   AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS. 

I  grant  that  in  the  order  of  disclosure,  the  Messianic  times,  as  repre 
sented  in  Daniel,  follow  on  immediately  after  the  death  of  Antiochus. 
But  such  is  the  case,  also,  in  all  the  prophets,  whatever  the  events  may  be. 
In  Isa.  iii.  the  Messianic  day  follows  the  severe  punishment  of  the  then 
offending  Jews.  With  the  Assyrian  invasion,  in  ch.  vii.  viii.,  is  con 
nected  one  of  the  most  striking  of  all  the  Messianic  prophecies,  Isa.  9: 
1 — 7.  With  the  end  of  the  Assyrian  invasion,  in  ch.  x.,  is  united  another 
magnificent  prediction  of  the  same  nature,  in  ch.  xi.  With  the  overthrow 
of  Idumea,  ch.  xxxiv.,  is  united  a  Messianic  prediction,  ch.  xxxv.  In 
ch.  xl — Ixvi.  the  return  from  exile  is  constantly  connected  with  the  Mes 
sianic  times.  In  Jeremiah,  promises  of  gospel-times  are  attached  to  the 
penitence  of  Israel  then  backsliding,  ch.  iii.  In  ch.  xxiii.,  the  BRANCH 
is  to  reign,  after  the  scattered  Jews  are  called  in.  In.  ch.  xxxi.  xxxii. 
xxxiii.,  substantially  the  same  things  are  repeated,  in  the  like  connection. 
The  same  is  the  case  in  Ezek.  xxxiv.  and  xxxvii.  In  Joel  ii.,  gospel- 
times  are  predicted,  in  connection  with  a  recovery  from  drought  and 
locusts.  In  Joel  iii.,  the  Messianic  period  follows  the  defeat  of  the  sur 
rounding  nations  who  attack  Jerusalem.  In  Amos  ix.,  the  same  period 
follows  punishment  and  repentance.  In  Micah  iv.  v.,  it  follows  a  time  of 
punishment  and  desolation.  In  Hag.  ii.  it  follows  the  finishing  of  the 
temple,  "  after  a  little  while."  In  Zech.  ii.,  it  follows  the  return  from  exile. 
In  ch.  iii.  xii.  xiv.,  it  follows  the  subjugation  of  foreign  enemies  who  had 
afflicted  the  Jews.  But  in  Mai.  iii.  iv.,  and  almost  only  there  in  the 
prophets,  it  hardly  stands  related  to  specific  occurrences. 

Such  is  the  view  which  the  prophets  afford  us.  To  say  now  that  Dan 
iel  is  strange  or  peculiar,  in  regard  to  associating  the  Messianic  times 
with  definite  historical  events,  is  to  say  what  is  plainly  against  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  prophets.  Yvre  have  just  seen  this.  If  Daniel  is  in  the 
wrong,  they  are  equally  so.  If  he  has  mistaken  or  misrepresented  the 
matter,  so  have  they ;  and  some  of  them,  e.  g.  Isaiah,  have  misrepre 
sented  it  even  more  abundantly  than  he.  If  they  are  all  in  the  wrong* 
that  is  another  affair.  My  present  business  is,  to  show  that  Daniel  stands 
on  the  same  platform  as  his  brethren. 

If  it  be  a  fact,  then,  (and  we  have  seen  that  it  is),  that  Daniel's  Mes 
sianic  predictions  are  in  conformity  with  those  of  all  the  other  prophets 
as  to  arrangement,  how  can  the  matter  of  arrangement  be  adduced  as  an 
argument  for  the  later  composition  of  the  book  ?  And  what  shall  we  say, 
moreover,  when  we  find  that  the  Saviour  himself  has  spoken  in  like  man 
ner  of  his  second  corning?  In  Matt.  xxiv.  xxv.,  his  coming,  and  even  his 
final  coming,  seems,  at  first  view,  to  be  linked  with  the  destruction  of  Je 
rusalem  by  the  Romans.  So  is  it,  too,  with  Paul  and  other  writers  of  the 


§7.   OBJECTIONS    AGAINST  THE    GENUINENESS.  485 

N.  Test.  The  coming  of  the  Lord  is  seemingly  put  in  connection  with 
certain  events,  or  personages,  of  apostolic  times.  So  in  the  Apocalypse, 
the  Millenium  is  linked  with  the  destruction  of  the  beast  which  has  seven 
heads  and  ten  horns,  i.  e.  Pagan  and  persecuting  Rome.  So  the  general 
judgment  seems  to  follow  on,  as  soon  as  the  Millennium  is  concluded.* 

What  now  are  we  to  conclude  from  all  this,  in  respect  to  Lengerke's 
allegations  ?  And  more  especially,  what  are  we  to  say,  when  we  take  a 
view  of  the  Messianic  developments  at  the  Maccabaean  period  ?  We 
have  seen  (p.  435  above),  that  nothing  but  the  most  tame  and  anti- 
spiritual  views  of  the  Messianic  period  are  to  be  found  in  Sirach, 
1  Mace.,  Tobit,  or  Baruch,  which  are  the  writings  of  that  period. 
There  is  not  a  word  in  all  of  them  even  of  a  personal  Messiah,  much  less 
of  a  Redeemer  who  was  immediately  to  come.  Where  then  does  Len- 
gerke  get  data,  from  which  he  comes  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  Macca 
baean  times  cherished  the  expectation  of  an  immediate  Messianic  Deliv 
erer  ?  There  is  not  a  word  in  all  history,  nor  in  all  the  coetaneous  writ 
ers  of  those  times,  which  entitles  him  to  make  the  conclusions  which  he 
has  made.  Directly  the  contrary ;  for,  as  we  have  seen  above  (p.  435), 
Daniel  differs  heaven-wide  in  his  Messianic  developments  from  the  writers 
of  the  Maccabaean  age.  Lengerke's  argument,  then,  is  altogether  ground 
less  ;  and  even  if  he  could  show  that  the  Maccabaean  period  cherished 
hopes  of  the  immediate  advent  of  the  Messiah,  it  would  prove  nothing. 
The  representations  of  Daniel  are  in  strict  conformity  with  the  method 
and  arrangement  of  all  the  older  prophets. 

It  is  a  different  question,  how  the  phenomena  before  us  are  to  be 
accounted  for.  Is  it,  as  has  often  been  alleged,  because  prophets  and 
apostles  really  thought  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  was  immediately 
to  take  place,  that  they  have  thus  spoken  ?  Believe  this  who  may  or  can  ; 
I  cannot  in  any  measure  accede  to  it.  When  Paul  wrote  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  in  the  usual  manner  about  the  coming  of  Christ,  even  his  last  com 
ing  (1  Thess.  4: 13 — 18,  comp.  ch.  v.),  and  they  interpreted  his  words  as 
Neologists  and  some  others  now  interpret  them  —  what  did  he  do  ?  He 
wrote  another  epistle,  in  which  he  corrected  their  mistake,  2  Thess.  2: 
1  seq.  And  John  —  how  was  it  with  him  ?  One  coming  of  Christ  was 
speedily  to  take  place,  John  21:  22,  23.  Rev.  1:  1,  3,  7.  22:  7,  10,  20. 
What  shall  be  said,  then,  of  that  exegesis,  which,  allowing  only  of  one 
coming  of  Christ,  makes  it  out  from  John,  that  he  expected  the  end  of  the 
world  during  his  day  ?  Is  this  so  ?  How  then  came  John  so  fully  and 

*  If  Prof.  Crosby  had  diligently  surveyed  this  whole  ground,  he  might  have 
spared  himself  and  others  the  enigmas  which  he  has  charged  upon  the  N.Test.  writers, 
in  his  little  book  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  coming. 

41* 


486  §  7.    OBJECTIONS  AGAINST   THE   GENUINENESS. 

«y 

formally  to  declare,  in  Eev.  xx.,  that  a  thousand  years,  yea,  all  this  time 
moreover  after  the  extinction  of  the  beast  and  the  false  prophet  (Rev.19: 
20,  21),  must  needs  be  passed,  during  which  the  universal  triumphs  of  the 
gospel  were  to  continue  ?  All  this  period  must  first  pass  away,  before 
"  the  great  white  throne"  (Rev.  20:11)  will  be  occupied  by  the  Judge  of  all. 
How  then  did  John  expect  the  end  of  the  world  during  his  own  life-time  ? 
Did  he  really  expect  to  live  during  all  the  period  occupied  by  Messianic 
conquests,  (which  he  has  sung  in  his  sublime  epic  with  notes  so  loud  and 
clear,)  and  then  a  thousand  years  more  in  addition ;  and  then,  no  one 
knows  how  much  longer  before  the  end  of  the  world  ?  Or  if  he  were  to 
live  so  long,  did  he  expect  others  whom  he  addressed,  to  live  during  all 
this  period  ?  One  must  think  very  differently  of  him  from  what  I  am 
disposed  or  able  to  think,  if  he  believes  all  this.  At  all  events,  a  man 
who  can  believe  all  this,  has  very  little  claim  to  tax  others  with  credulity. 

We  are  not  at  liberty,  then,  to  charge  the  sacred  writers  of  the 
N.  Test.,  (who  have  thus  developed  their  views),  with  a  belief  in  the  im 
mediate  and  final  coming  of  the  Messiah.  As  little  are  the  O.  Test, 
prophets  chargeable  with  a  belief  that  his  first  coming  was  to  be  imme 
diate.  Such  a  supposition  is  opposed  by  the  consideration,  that  the 
same  prophets,  who  speak  apparently  of  his  immediate  coming,  have 
predicted  other  events,  the  happening  of  which  must  occupy  many  years, 
yea  a  long  period,  before  that  coming.  How  can  we  suppose  them  to  be 
so  grossly  and  palpably  inconsistent  with  themselves  ? 

Thus  far  then,  we  have  no  satisfactory  solution  of  the  problem  before  us. 
In  what  does  this  solution  lie,  or  how  can  we  explain  the  usage  in  ques 
tion  ?  Only  in  the  way,  I  would  answer,  in  which  Peter  (1  Pet.  1:11) 
has  taught  us  to  go.  He  says,  that  although  prophets  sought  most  anx 
iously  to  know  the  when  of  the  Messianic  development,  yet  they  were 
merely  taught  that  it  would  be  at  a  distant  day,  even  at  the  period  in 
which  Peter  lived.  "  The  times  and  the  seasons  hath  the  Father  kept  in 
his  own  power."  Hence  no  prophet,  not  even  Daniel,  specificates  the  time 
of  the  advent.  The  fact  then,  everywhere  apparent,  that  the  prophets 
have  connected  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  with  events  of  their  time,  is 
to  be  regarded  in  quite  a  different  light  from  that  in  which  Lengerke  and 
others  have  placed  it.  It  results  from  a  connection  and  sequency  of 
order  and  arrangement,  not  from  an  immediate  sequency  of  time.  After 
predictions  of  evil  of  any  kind,  and  of  devastation  and  destruction,  words 
of  comfort  are  next  subjoined.  The  pious  are  thus  led  to  the  cheering 
hope  of  better  times  and  a  future  Deliverer.  This  saves  them  from  a 
despairing  attitude  of  mind.  If  they  know  not,  and  are  not  permitted  to 
know,  the  day  nor  the  hour  of  the  promised  good,  yet  they  are  per- 


§  7.    OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   THE    GENUINENESS.  487 

mitted  to  cherish  the  animated  hope  which  the  certain  futurition  of  good 
inspires. 

In  contemplating  their  position,  I  imagine  to  myself  a  spectator,  from 
an  elevated  station,  looking  to  a  distant  mountain-prospect.  Behind  each 
other  are  ridges  of  mountains,  with  intervening  vallies  or  table-lands. 
The  latter  he  cannot  see ;  but  the  ridges  heaved  up  to  a  great  altitude 
are  perfectly  visible,  while  at  the  same  time  they  appear  quite  proximate 
to  each  other.  The  eye  can  discern  nothing  between  them,  and  the  inex 
perienced  seer  is  ready  to  affirm  that  they  are  in  close  proximity ;  while 
the  experienced  observer  knows  how  fallacious  such  a  conclusion  may  be. 
So  is  it  with  the  prophets.  According  to  Peter  the  specific  time  of  the 
Messiah's  advent  was  not  revealed.  But  the  advent  itself  loomed  up 
into  distinct  visibility.  The  prophets  wrote  according  to  the  appearance 
of  things ;  or  rather,  they  wrote  according  to  the  train  of  thought  in  their 
own  minds,  While  they  were  seeing  visions  of  calamity  and  deep  distress, 
they  were  filled  with  gloom.  Daniel  and  others  tell  us  that  they  were 
sick,  and  fainted,  in  the  midst  of  such  visions.  But  the  scene  soon  changes. 
Their  fainting  spirits  are  revived.  They  see.  the  Sun  of  righteousness  aris 
ing  upon  the  darkness.  They  are  cheered  with  his  light.  How  long  the 
darkness  will  endure,  it  may  be  that  they  know  not ;  but  that  light  and 
peace  and  hope  and  joy  will  follow,  they  feel  assured.  Their  pens  follow 
the  visions  and  emotions  of  their  minds.  These  are  in  immediate  succes 
sion  ;  and  they  describe  them  accordingly.  But  the  times  and  seasons 
are  not  specifically  limited.  Invents  only  are  made  definite  and  certain, 
while  chronology  stands  silently  by.  The  prophets  are  not  writing  annals, 
but  they  simply  foretell  events  of  thrilling  interest. 

In  this  way  I  should  account  for  the  striking  phenomena  in  question. 
As  these  phenomena  are  so  uniform  and  all  but  universal,  there  must  be 
one  common  principle  at  the  basis  of  the  whole.  I  see  no  other  so  prob 
able  and  satisfactory  as  the  one  just  stated. 

But  enough  of  Lengerke,  and  of  objections.  I  have  not  canvassed 
every  thing  which  he  has  said,  or  rather  declaimed  ;  but  I  have  omitted 
no  one  thing  to  which  a  reasonable  and  sober  man  can  attach  any  im 
portance. 

And  now,  at  the  conclusion  of  this  protracted  discussion,  let  me  merely 
glance  at  some  of  the  leading  reasons  for  receiving  the  book  of  Daniel 
as  genuine,  and  I  shall  dismiss  the  topic. 

I  will  not  insist  on  the  writer's  own  declaration  of  his  authorship, 
although  such  an  argument  has  weight,  when  there  are  no  particular 
grounds  of  suspicion.  But  that  such  a  man  as  Daniel  existed,  is  testified 
repeatedly  by  Ezekiel ;  that  he  was  a  prophet,  is  asserted  by  Christ  and 


488  §  7.  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST  THE    GENUINENESS. 

his  apostles  who  quote  from  his  book ;  that  his  book  was  in  the  Canon 
before  the  Maccabaean  period,  is  clear  from  the  testimony  of  Sirach  (at 
least  180  B.  C.),  of  the  N.  Test.,  of  Philo,  of  Josephus,  of  Melito,  of 
Origen,  and  of  all  the  Christian  Fathers  and  Jewish  Rabbies  down  to  the 
fifth  century ;  what  I  mean  is,  that  all  of  them  tell  in  substance  the  same 
story,  without  a  dissenting  voice.  That  Daniel  was  ranked  with  the 
prophets,  and  stood  immediately  before  or  after  Ezekiel,  is  clear  from  the 
description  of  the  nature  of  the  Canon  in  Sirach,  the  N.  Test.,  Philo, 
and  Josephus ;  and  from  Melito  down  to  Jerome,  by  the  catalogues  of 
the  O.  Test,  books  where  each  is  named  seriatim.  Jerome  was  the  first 
who  learned  from  the  Rabbins,  that  they  in  his  time,  ranked  Daniel 
among  the  writers  of  the  Hagiography  or  Kethubhim.  For  this  disloca 
tion,  Theodoret,  of  that  same  period,  taxes  them  with  impudent  audacity. 
Then  the  internal  evidences  in  favor  of  the  antiquity  of  the  book  are  of 
the  most  conclusive  kind.  Whether  we  make  inquiries  in  reference  to 
history,  or  customs,  or  manners,  or  laws,  or  natural  objects,  or  political 
regime,  or  the  language  or  dialects  of  the  book  —  to  whatever  quarter 
we  direct  our  scrutiny;  all  —  all  is  as  it  should  be,  all  is  as  we  might 
expect  it  would  be,  in  case  the  book  is  genuine  and  ancient.  Not  a  soli 
tary  voice  for  more  than  2200  years  was  ever  raised  against  it,  except 
by  some  Porphyry  who  denied  all  revelation.  What  more  do  we  want  ? 
What  more  can  we  reasonably  ask  for  ?  Indeed,  I  feel  prepared  to  aver 
with  open  face,  and  without  fear  of  confutation,  that  there  is  no  book  in 
the  O.  Test,  whose  antiquity  and  genuineness  are  better  vouched  for 
than  that  of  Daniel. 

Lengerke  thinks  there  is  no  good  evidence  that  David  wrote  the 
Psalms,  or  Solomon  a  good  part  of  the  Proverbs,  certainly  not  Canticles 
or  Ecclesiastes.  He  believes  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch, 
nor  Isaiah  the  most  of  what  goes  under  his  name ;  and  so  of  several  of 
the  prophets.  So  in  the  New  Testament.  Matthew  is  rejected  by  one 
critic ;  Mark  by  a  second ;  Luke  by  another ;  John  by  another ;  all  the 
Gospels  are  assigned  to  the  second  century  by  others ;  many  of  Paul's 
writings  are  wrested  from  him ;  the  2  Peter  is  lopped  off;  Jude  is  sup 
posititious  ;  the  Apocalypse  is  the  work  of  an  enthusiastic  Millenarian 
of  the  second  century.  Such  are  the  heights  to  which  the  new  criticism 
climbs,  or  rather,  the  deep  abysses  into  which  it  plunges.  The  stopping 
place,  I  suppose,  is  where  Bruno  Baur  has  found  his  rest,  viz.  that  the 
whole  is  a  fiction  and  a  fraud,  got  up  by  superstitious  priests  in  order  to 
sway  and  manage  the  vulgar.  But  if  this  be  not  the  ultima  Thule,  then 
it  may  be  thought  by  some,  that  Kant  and  Hegel  have  proposed  a  more 
inviting  region.  Christianity,  and  its  predecessor,  Mosaism,  were  but 


§  8.  ANCIENT  VERSIONS.  489 

stepping  stones  in  our  way  to  the  top  of  the  mountain.  Reason,  pure 
reason,  reason  absolute,  instinctive,  godlike,  indeed  the  Divinity  itself — 
this  sits  in  judgment  on  all  revelations  and  on  all  religions,  and  enthroned 
high  above  them  all  looks  down  on  all  and  says  :  '  Before  due  place  was 
given  to  me,  you  were  of  some  account ;  but  now  I  have  no  further  ser 
vice  for  you  to  perform  ;  take  your  humble  place  at  my  footstool,  and 
there  await  my  pleasure.' 

Such  is  the  ultimatum  of  neological  criticism  in  religion  and  philosophy. 
And  as  to  the  book  before  us,  nearly  every  objection  which  is  urged 
against  it  converges  to,  and  centers  in,  one  single  a  priori  maxim,  viz. 
'  A  miracle  is  an  impossibility ;  prediction  would  be  a  miracle ;  if 
the  book  of  Daniel  be  ancient  and  genuine,  prediction  must  inevitably 
be  admitted  ;  and  because  this  cannot  be  admitted,  the  book  must  be 
from  the  hand  of  a  Pseudo- Daniel,  and  have  been  written  post  eventum.' 

Such  are  the  positions,  such  the  objections,  and  such  the  spirit,  that  a 
sober  inquirer  is  called  to  meet  with  and  to  oppose.  But  if  he  will  have 
patience,  and  examine  the  whole  matter,  he  need  not  fear  a  challenge 
to  combat.  He  enters  the  lists  with  prophets,  and  apostles,  and  the 
whole  church  of  God  in  past  ages,  and  the  Saviour  himself,  on  his  side, 
and  ready  to  support  him.  Neology  has  indeed  raised  a  loud  outcry 
against  the  book  before  us.  It  has  contradicted ;  it  has  poured  out  con 
tumely  ;  it  has  haughtily  looked  down  with  contemptuous  sneering.  And 
yet,  after  all,  there  is  not  a  single  argument  on  which  it  can  place  any 
reliance,  which  will  not  prove  the  Saviour  of  the  world  to  have  been 
an  impostor,  in  pretending  to  work  miracles ;  and  his  apostles  to  have 
been  enthusiasts  or  impostors,  in  believing  in  them  and  also  pretending 
to  work  them.  The  arguments  that  eject  Daniel  from  the  Canon,  cast 
out  with  equal  violence  the  writings  of  the  evangelists  and  the  apostles. 

It  is  time  to  pass  on  to  remaining  topics.  They  are  but  few,  and  will 
require  but  a  little  space  to  canvass  them. 

§  8.  Ancient  Versions  of  the  book  of  Daniel. 

(1)  That  an  Alexandrine  or  Septuagintal  Version  of  Daniel  was  ex 
tant,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Maccabaean  period,  is  quite  certain ;  for 
1  Mace,  has  quoted  it  in  a  number  of  places :  e.  g.  comp.  Sept.  Daniel,  11: 
31  with  1  Mace.  1:  46;  Sept.  11:  25  with  Mace.  1:  17,  18;  Sept.  11:  26 
with  Mace.  1:  18—20,  24,  28,  36,  54,  et  al.  That  it  continued  to  be 
used  until  the  time  of  Theodotion  (2nd  century),  is  plain.  Justin  Martyr 
(Dial.  c.  Try  p.  p.  128)  clearly  quotes  it ;  and  so  in  other.passages.  Ter- 
tullian  (De  Jejun.)  quotes  Daniel  2:  19,  according  to  the  same  Version. 
Origen  had  it  included  in  his  Hexapla.  But  from  that  time  down  to 


490  §8.   ANCIENT   VERSIONS. 

A.  D.  1772,  nothing  more  was  heard  or  known  of  it,  so  far  as  can  now 
be  discovered,  excepting  what  Jerome  says  respecting  it.  Tn  the  year 
last  named,  this  LXX.  Version  was  published  at  Rome,  from  the  Codex 
Chisianus  in  the  Vatican  library,  in  a  folio  volume.  The  important  parts 
of  this  volume  were  republished  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  1774 ;  and  by  Se- 
gaar  at  Utrecht  soon  after,  accompanied  by  his  own  annotations. 

Jerome's  testimony  mostly  respects  the  desuetude  into  which  the  Version 
had  fallen,  even  long  before  his  time.  Origen  himself,  in  his  Commen 
tary,  uses  the  Version  of  Theodotion,  then  but  recently  made.  Jerome 
seems  to  be  in  some  perplexity,  about  the  cause  of  the  neglect  exhibited 
toward  the  Sept.  Version.  In  the  preface  to  his  own  version  of  Daniel, 
in  speaking  of  this  neglect,  he  says :  "  Hoc  cur  accidit  nescio."  After 
suggesting  various  conjectures  respecting  the  matter  he  adds :  "  Quod 
multum  a  veritate  discordet,  et  recto  judicio  repudiata  sit."  In  com 
menting  on  Dan.  iv.,  he  adverts  to  a  remarkable  departure  of  the  Sept. 
version  from  the  Hebrew  original,  and  then  adds  :  "  Unde  judicio  magis- 
trorum  ecclesiae  editio  eorum  in  hoc  volumine  repudiata  est ;"  and  to 
this  he  subjoins  the  remark  that  "  the  version  of  Theodotion  is  read  in 
the  churches,  which  agrees  better  with  the  Hebrew  and  with  other 
translators."  Probably  the  version  of  the  Sept.  went  gradually  into 
desuetude;  for  that  of  Theodotion  was,  on  account  of  his  alleged  heresy, 
somewhat  slow  in  coming  into  usage.  Michaelis  (in  Bib.  Orient.  Th.  4.) 
has  given  a  most  minute  and  circumstantial  account  of  this  version,  having 
examined  every  word  and  letter  in  it.  Its  historical  worth  is  not  much. 
It  shows  an  effort  at  an  ornate  style  and  purity  of  Greek,  and  often 
sacrifices  to  these  the  exactness  required  in  a  version.  Not  a  few  arbi 
trary  omissions  and  additions  are  made ;  the  notions  of  the  times  are 
sometimes  developed,  and  historical  facts,  then  recent,  are  alluded  to. 
The  wonderful  in  the  book  is  augmented  in  the  version.  The  same- 
spirit  which  led  to  this  is  exhibited  by  the  apocryphal  additions  to  the 
book,  which  are  described  in  §  9. 

There  are  many  specific  departures  from  the  Hebrew.  By  consulting 
Michaelis  (ut  supra),  the  student  may  find  them  all  enumerated.  Here 
and  there  a  happy  rendering  occurs,  which  assists  the  intelligible  reading 
of  the  original. 

(2)  The  Greek  of  Daniel,  in  our  common  Septuagint,  is  the  translation 
of  Theodotion,  made  in  the  second  century  of  the  Christian  era.  It  is 
much  more  literal  and  exact  than  the  Sept.  version.  There  can  be  no 
doubt,  however,  that  the  translator  had  this  before  him.  Yet  he  has 
extended  his  corrections  further  than  was  necessary.  However,  it  is 
beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  that  many  of  these  have  been  interpolated 
since  the  time  of  Theodotion  ;  for  some  of  them  hardly  consist  with  the 


§  8.   ANCIENT   VERSIONS.  491 

general  character  of  his  version.  There  is  no  good  reason  to  believe, 
that  the  long  addition  to  Dan.  iii.,  viz.  the  prayer  of  Azarias  and  the 
hymn  of  the  three  martyrs,  also  Dan.  xiii.  xiv.  (as  appended  to  the  book 
since  Theodotion's  time),  were  originally  attached  to  his  version  ;  for  he 
merely  translated  the  Hebrew  Daniel.  The  prayer  and  hymn,  the  story 
of  Susanna,  and  the  history  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  were  doubtless 
composed  in  Greek  ;  but  at  an  early  period.  We  find  Origen  defending 
them ;  the  Alexandrine  church  very  partial  to  them ;  and  the  Romish 
church  admitting  them  into  the  canon,  as  incorporated  with  the  book  of 
Daniel.  But  Jerome  denounces  them  all  as  mere  fables ;  and  even 
Origen  admits  that  the  Hebrews  never  had  them.  It  is  remarkable,  that 
our  oldest  MSS.  of  the  Sept.  in  general,  exhibit  these  apocryphal  books 
as  connected  with  the  Daniel  of  Theodotion.  That  this  was  originally 
the  case,  there  is  not,  as  has  been  said,  the  slightest  probability.  The 
whole  thing  was  brought  about  by  the  fondness  of  the  Alexandrine 
churches  for  the  marvellous,  and  their  unscrupulous  reception  into  the 
canon  of  many  books  that  did  not  belong  there,  and  which  even  the 
Romish  church  named  deutero-canonical. 

On  the  whole,  not  much  important  aid  can  be  drawn  from  the  version 
even  of  Theodotion.  Now  and  then  there  is  a  happy  rendering  of  a 
Hebrew  word  or  phrase ;  but  not  unfrequently,  also,  one  which  shows 
that  the  translator  had  no  very  exact  view  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  text.  Great  caution  is  needed,  in  reading  such  a  version ;  one 
moreover,  which  has  beyond  all  doubt  been  considerably  interpolated 
and  sometimes  abriged.  It  is  sound  advice  to  the  student  of  the  book 
of  Daniel  that  he  should  consider  the  Greek  version  as  merely  adventi 
tious  aid,  but  never  as  an  authority. 

(3).  THE  SYRIAC  VERSION  of  this  book,  as  already  intimated  (p.  312 
above),  exhibits  a  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew,  which  renders  it  well 
worth  the  attention  of  the  enquirer.  As  Daniel  has  110  Targum  or 
Chaldee  version,  it  performs  a  valuable  service  in  the  explanation  of 
Hebrew  words.  In  the  Chaldee  part  of  Daniel,  however,  it  exhibits 
some  strange  misconceptions  of  the  meaning  of  the  author.  The 
apocryphal  additions  made  to  the  book,  as  before  noticed,  are  appended 
to  this  version;  but  probably  by  interpolation  in  the  third  century. 
The  student  may  find  in  this  version,  something  of  the  same  assistance, 
which  is  rendered  to  other  books  by  the  Targums. 

(4).  THE  VULGATE.  This  is,  as  a  whole,  superior  to  any  other 
ancient  version,  and  shows  a  more  thorough  knowledge  than  any  of 
them  in  respect  to  the  tenor  and  nature  of  the  book.  An  invaluable 
service  has  Jerome  done,  by  this  translation  of  Daniel  and  by  his  com 
mentary  upon  the  book.  As  received  by  the  Romish  church,  it  has 


492  §  9.   APOCRYPHAL    ADDITIONS    TO    DANIEL. 

the  apocryphal  additions,  translated  from  the  Greek  as  appended  to  the 
version  of  Theodotion.  Jerome  evidently  bestowed  much  time  and 
pains  upon  these  works. 

(5)  Some  other  versions,  or  fragments  of  versions,  are  extant,  (a) 
A  Greek  version,  out  of  St.  Mark's  Library  at  Venice,  published  by 
Villoison,  A.  D.  1784 ;  a  slavishly  literal  translation,  (b)  Fragments 
out  of  Theodotion  by  Jacob  of  Edessa,  in  Syriac.  (c)  A  Hebrew  ver 
sion  of  the  Chaldee  in  Daniel  and  Ezra,  printed  in  Kennicott's  Bible, 
from  a  manuscript  of  1327  in  the  Vatican. 

§  9.  Apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel. 

Already  we  had  occasion  to  advert  frequently  to  them,  in  describing' 
the  ancient  versions.  It  will  be  proper  here  to  descant  on  them  with 
so  mewhat  more  of  particularity. 

(a)  In  the  midst  of  the  third  chapter  (after  v.  24,)  is  inserted,  first 
the  prayer  of  Azarias  (Abednego),  who,  for  himself  and  his  friends, 
made  confession  and  supplication.  The  prayer  is  plainly  made  up  of 
fragments  from  Dan.  ix.  and  Neh.  ix.  It  abounds  in  the  confession  of 
Jewish  national  sins,  and  supplications  for  pardon  and  restoration. 
There  is  scarcely  anything  in  it  which  is  appropriate  to  the  condition  of 
Azarias  and  his  friends.  It  is  such  a  prayer  as  we  could  well  suppose 
might  have  been  uttered  in  a  fast-day-assemblage  of  exiled  Jews.  But 
there  is  one  feature  in  it,  that  seems  to  betray  the  fact  that  a  later  hand  has 
been  meddling  with  the  original  composition.  In  v.  40,  Azarias  prays 
thus  :  "  As  in  the  offering  of  rams,  bulls,  and  thousands  of  fat  lambs,  so 
let  our  sacrifice  in  thy  sight  to  day  make  propitiation  for  us ! "  This 
savors  strongly  of  a  Romish  Christian  hand.  I  know  not  where  to  find 
any  parallel  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  I  could  with  a  good  degree  of 
confidence  say,  that  some  such  man  as  wrote  Hernias'  Pastor,  must 
have  written  this.  The  prayer  includes  vs.  25 — 45,  and  vs.  46 — 51  are 
then  occupied  with  narrative,  stating  how  the  furnace  was  heated,  that 
the  flame  mounted  up  49  cubits,  and  how  an  angel  descended  into  the 
furnace  and  made  the  air  like  a  dewy  blowing  wind.  Forthwith  the 
martyrs  burst  into  a  song  of  praise,  which  is  contained  in  vs.  52 — 90. 
The  model  of  the  writer  Avas  Ps.  148,  where  the  different  creatures  of 
God,  animate  and  inanimate,  are  called  on  to  praise  him.  But  here  the 
matter  is  extended  to  a  wearisome  length  ;  for  the  same  objects  in  dif 
ferent  combinations  are  repeatedly  introduced.  There  is  a  kind  of 
chorus  to  nearly  every  verse,  like  that  in  Ps.  136.  For  the  rest  —  some 
of  the  thoughts  are  expressed  in  a  pleasing  manner,  but  on  the  whole 
there  is  great  tameness  and  want  of  vital  energy.  It  is  but  a  sorry 


§  9.   APOCHRYPHAL   ADDITIONS   TO   DANIEL.  493 

composition,  when  compared  with  the  Psalms  which  it  attempts  to  imi 
tate.  From  v.  91  to  100,  the  original  Chaldee  of  Daniel  is  followed 
although  with  not  a  few  of  minor  departures  from  the  original.  The 
days  of  abounding  zeal  for  litanies  and  liturgies,  must  have  given  birth 
to  such  a  composition ;  and  only  such  a  period  sanctioned  the  addition  of 
it  to  the  Jewish  canonical  Daniel. 

(b)  THE  HISTORY  OF  SUSANNA.     This  is  quite  an  attractive  novel 
ette.     Most  children  and  young  persons  read  it  with  great  pleasure. 
The  narration  is  simple,  and  the  style  indicates  a  writer  more  expert  in 
Greek  than  Hebrews  in  general  were.     Vs.  54,  55,  also  58,  59,  betray 
a  Greek  original  beyond  all  doubt,  by  the  paronomasias  which  they  ex 
hibit.     The  object  of  the  narration  is,  to  exalt  the  early  youth  of  Daniel. 
Dan.  i.  ii.  gave  rise,  no  doubt,  to  the  story.     The  modesty,  virtue,  and 
piety  of  Susanna  form  an  attractive  picture ;  and  the  dexterity  of  Daniel 
in  bringing  out  the  concealed  guilt  of  the  elders,  is  not  unworthy  of  the 
man.     One  is  inclined  ,to  ask,  however,  in  what  way  a  youth  came  by 
authority  to  sit  in  judgment,  as  Daniel  does,  upon  elders ;  but  the  writer 
has  solved  the  nodus,  by  telling  us  (v.  45),  that  he  had  a  special  divine 
commission.     The  narrative  ends,  in  imitation  of  several  passages  in  the 
genuine  Daniel,  with  bringing  to  view  the  elevation  and  influence  of  the 
prophet.     If  apocryphal  writers  had  never  composed  anything  worse 
than  the  history  of  Susanna,  we  might  feel  quite  favorably  disposed  to 
ward  them.     I  add  merely  that  Jer.  29:  23  seq.  appears  to  have  suggest 
ed  material  to  the  author  for  the  plan  of  his  work. 

(c)  BEL    AND    THE  DRAGON.      Somewhat  inappropriately  has  the 
writer  introduced  Bel  here,  as  the  object  of  religious  worship  under 
Cyrus.     The  older  Magi  had  no  temples,  no  altars,  no  idol-statues.   Xen- 
ophon,  indeed,  makes  Cyrus  oftentimes  speak  and  act  like  a  Greek,  in 
relation  to  Grecian  divinities.     This  is  the  greatest  mistake  in  his  book, 
and  shows  that  he  knew  little  of  the  religion  of  the  Parsis.     But  he  was 
writing  for  Grecian  readers ;  and  they  probably  felt  but  little  interest 
in  Parsism.     The  writer  of  the  story  under  review  has  brought  Cyrus 
before  us  as  a  worshipper  of  Bel,  who  was  a  Babylonian  god.    The  story 
itself  is  composed  with  some  adroitness,  and  is  attractive  to  readers  in 
general.     The  exposure  of  the  imposture  of  the  heathen  priests,  in  pro 
viding  such  sumptuous  feasts  for  Bel,  while  they  themselves  secretly 
consumed  the  whole  by  night,  is  very  well  managed,  and  in  itself  would 
present  nothing  incredible.     But  the  latter  part  of  the  story  spoils  the 
credit  of  the  whole.     Daniel  is  cast  into  the  lions'  den  by  Cyrus,  who 
was  forced  by  the  priests  to  give  him  up  to  their  vengeance.     While 
there,  the  spirit  of  God  bids  the  prophet  Habakkuk,  in  Judea,  to  go  to 

42 


494  §  10.  LEADING  COMMENTARIES  AND  CRITICAL  DISQUISITIONS. 

Babylon,  and  furnish  Daniel  with  food.  On  the  suggestion  of  difficulties  by 
the  prophet  about  obeying  this  command,  an  angel  takes  him  by  the  hair 
of  his  head,  and  carries  him  through  the  air  to  the  lions'  den  at  Babylon, 
with  the  food  in  his  possession,  and  there  Habakkuk  feeds  and  comforts 
Daniel.  The  angel  then  transports  him  back  to  Judea.  After  seven 
days  Cyrus  comes  to  mourn  for  Daniel ;  he  finds  him  living  and  well ; 
and  causes  him  to  be  taken  out  of  the  den,  and  his  persecutors  to  be 
thrown  into  it,  who  were  instantly  devoured. 

The  transportation  through  the  air  is  an  exact  imitation  of  Ezek. 
8:  3.  But  in  Ezekiel's  case,  all  is  done  merely  in  a  trance  or  prophetic 
vision.  The  rest  of  the  last  paragraph  is  all  taken  from  Daniel  vi. 
One  escape  of  Daniel  from  lions  was  not  enough  for  the  author  of  this 
fiction.  He  seems  to  have  practised  upon  the  maxim :  "  The  more  of  a 
good  thing,  the  better." 

The  two  last  named  works  compare  well  with  some  of  the  Jewish 
(Rabbinic)  Haggadoth,  i.  e.  rvhan ,  pleasant  stories.  They  seem  to  be 
of  Jewish  origin,  whether  Christian  or  not  it  would  be  difficult  to  say. 
There  is  nothing  decisive  of  this  point,  in  the  narratives  themselves. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  no  one  can  imbue  himself  with  the  spirit  of  the 
canonical  Daniel,  without  feeling  that  he  is  transported  to  a  foreign 
region,  when  he  begins  to  open  his  eyes  upon  these  romances.  It  is  in 
deed  a  difficult  task,  to  imitate  such  a  writer  as  Daniel.  Full  surely, 
the  apocryphal  writers  have  attempted  it  with  very  little  success.  My 
belief  is,  that  a  Pseudo-Daniel  of  the  Maccabaean  period  would  have 
won  few,  if  any,  more  laurels  than  they  have  won. 

;§  10.  Leading  Commentaries  and  Critical  Disquisitions  on  the  Book  of 

Daniel. 

Among  the  ancients,  is  the  Commentary  of  Ephrem  Syrus,  and  is  of 
importance  principally  as  leading  to  an  understanding  of  the  Peshito  or 
old  Syriac  Version.  The  four  monarchies  are  ill  understood,  and  the 
exegesis  tasteless  and  adventurous.  Among  the  Greeks,  Theodoret 
has  left  behind  him  a  Commentary  on  the  Greek  version  of  Theodotion. 
Few  of  his  remarks  are  grammatico-exegetical,  but  he  has  some  histori 
cal  data  that  are  of  value.  Jerome  (in  Latin)  stands  preeminent  above 
all  the  ancients,  for  tact  in  exegesis,  and  for  historical  and  Rabbinical 
learning.  Specially  has  he  given  us  the  views  of  Porphyry,  which 
otherwise  would  have  been  wholly  lost.  Among  the  moderns  stands 
conspicuous  the  great  Genevan,  John  Calvin,  whose  work  is  rich  in 
psychological  and  doctrinal  remarks.  A  critical  examination  of  the 
Hebrew  in  a  grammatical  way,  was  a  thing  not  begun  in  his  day,  and 


§  10.  LEADING  COMMENTARIES  AND  CRITICAL  DISQUISITIONS.   495 

must  not  be  looked  for  in  him.  But  many  a  fine  remark  will  be  found, 
and  a  deep  insight  into  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  author  is  every 
where  manifest. 

The  most  considerable  Commentators  after  him,  are  Grotius,  and  C. 
B.  Michaelis  in  the  Notae  Uberiores.  Bertholdt  (1806 — 1808)  pub 
lished  an  extensive  work  on  Daniel,  in  two  parts.  He  exhibits  many 
useful  explanations  of  a  historical  nature ;  but  he  has  not  a  few  tasteless 
conceits,  and  abounds  every  where  in  rationalistic  views.  Rosenmueller 
on  Daniel ;  Maurer's  brief  Commentary ;  Havernick  on  Daniel,  and 
Lengerke  on  the  same,  all  contain  useful  things,  although  in  different 
measures  and  in  a  diversity  of  ways.  The  first  two  and  the  last  are 
pretty  thoroughly  neological;  specially  as  to  all  critical  and  literary 
matters ;  but  Lengerke  especially,  as  we  have  already  seen,  goes  all 
lengths  in  the  destructive  criticism.  But  in  the  explanation  of  words 
and  phrases,  he  is  not  inferior  to  any  of  the  others ;  for  he  evidently 
possesses  a  good  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Chaldee. 

In  regard  to  the  literature  of  the  book,  we  have  an  abundance  of 
writers.  Among  those  who  have  called  in  question  the  genuineness  of 
t  he  book,  are  Corrodi,  in  his  Freimuthige  Versuche  and  Beleuchtung 
des  Bibelkanons,  the  oldest  opponent  of  the  book,  who  is  really  in 
earnest  and  at  all  formidable ;  Eichhorn,  in  his  Einleitung  ;  Bertholdt, 
in  his  Einleitung  und  Commentar ;  Griesinger,  in  his  Neue  Ansicht  des 
Daniel,  Gesenius,  in  Allgem.  Litt.  Zeitung  (Halle),  Erganz.  Blatter 
No.  80 ;  De  Wette  in  his  Einleit. ;  Bleek  in  Theol.  Zeitschrift  von 
Schleiermacher  etc.  Heft  iii.  s.  171  seq. ;  also  Rosenmuller  in  Comm. ; 
Lengerke  in  Comm. ;  Hitzig,  in  Heidelb.  Jahrb.  Heft  ii. ;  Redepen- 
ning,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1833  and  also  1835  (review  of 
Havernick)  ;  Ewald,  in  Berliner  Jahrb.  1831 ;  and  Knobel,  Hebrew 
Propheten,  ii.  §  40,  brief,  but  full  of  matter,  and  full  of  neology. 

In  defence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  may  be  mentioned  Lud- 
erwald,  die  6  ersten  capp.  Daniel's  geprijft,  1787 ;  Staudlin,  Neue  Beit- 
rage  ;  Beckhaus,  Integritat  prophet.  Schriften ;  Jahn,  Einleit. ;  Sack, 
Apologetik ;  and,  preeminent  above  them  all,  Hengstenberg,  Authentic 
des  Daniel,  altogether  the  most  thorough,  fundamental,  and  discriminating 
performance,  yet  not  free  from  some  inadmissible  exegesis,  specially  in 
regard  to  the  fourth  monarchy  and  the  70  weeks.  Havernick's  Com 
mentar  defends,  in  the  introduction,  the  genuineness  of  Daniel,  with  a 
good  degree  of  critical  ability ;  but  his  Neue  Untersuchungen,  written 
after  the  work  of  Lengerke,  is  a  groat  advance  upon  his  former  defence, 
and  in  many  respects  even  upon  the  work  of  Hengstenberg.  He  has 
thoroughly  dissipated  not  a  few  of  Lengerke's  skeptical  conclusions. 


496   §  10.  LEADING  COMMENTARIES  AND  CRITICAL  DISQUISITIONS. 

This  last  work  is  now  usually  appended  to  his  Commentary.  Besides 
this,  in  his  Einleitung  he  has  put  the  last  hand  to  what  he  desired  to 
do,  for  the  book  which  he  had  so  long  and  earnestly  defended.  But  he 
also  believes  in  a  Roman  empire,  as  predicted  by  Daniel ;  yet  in  his 
Excursus  on  the  fourth  monarchy,  at  the  close  of  his  Commentary,  he 
has  altogether  failed  to  satisfy  the  reasonable  demands  of  historico- 
grammatical  exegesis. 

More  recent  still  are  some  very  valuable  remarks  of  Oehler,  in 
Tholuck's  Lit.  Anzeiger,  1842,  Nos.  49—51. 

I  have  not  referred  to  English  writers,  who,  although  some  of  them 
have  valuable  remarks  on  the  book  before  us,  have  almost  en  masse, 
gone  in  the  old  road  of  a  fourth  Roman  empire,  and  entirely  neglected 
grammatico-historical  exegesis.  Nearly  all  have  made  out  an  exposi 
tion  a  priori,  and  harmonize  Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse  together,  as  if 
the  main  object  of  both  books  were  one  and  the  same.  There  may  be 
some  writing  with  which  I  am  unacquainted,  which  has  undertaken 
the  historico-grammatical  interpretation  of  the  book ;  if  so,  I  regre  t 
that  I  have  not  had  access  to  it.  England  now  has  men  fitted  for  such 
labor,  but  hitherto  the  study  of  Daniel  has  been  pursued  in  quite  a 
different  way.  A  recent  work  of  Mr.  Birk's  on  Daniel  I  have  seen, 
and  examined  to  some  extent ;  but  I  find  no  attempt  to  cast  light  on 
the  book  by  the  aid  of  interpretation  grounded  on  philology,  nor  even 
the  slightest  evidence  of  any  knowledge  of  the  original  language  of  the 
book.  Of  course  it  must  follow,  that  Daniel  is  explained  by  the  process 
which  the  Germans  name  hineinexegesiren,  i.  e.  throwing  an  a  priori 
explanation  into  it,  instead  of  getting  one  out  of  it.  I  cannot  conceive, 
how  any  valuable  light  can  be  thrown  on  the  Scriptures  in  this  way  of 
writing. 

So  far  as  I  know,  all  the  books  written  in  the  U.  States  on  the 
subject  of  Daniel's  prophecies,  (none  of  them  are  running  Commentaries 
on  the  book),  are  of  the  same  character  as  the  English  ones,  excepting 
a  like  book  of  the  Rev.  Ira  Chase,  D.  D.,  and  another  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Folsom.  These  reject  the  idea  of  a  Roman  monarchy,  and  show  that 
the  writers  of  them  had  discovered  the  fallacies  in  the  older  modes  of 
interpretation,  with  regard  to  this  subject.  They  can  find  no  Pope  in 
the  book,  other  than  Antiochus ;  and  for  this  heresy  (?),  they  have  found 
the  usual  retribution  from  those  interpreters,  who  make  Daniel  to  speak 
out  their  own  views,  instead  of  laboriously  searching  after  his.  It  re 
quires  no  prophetic  views  that  are  profound,  to  predict  that  such  a 
method  of  interpretation  as  the  last  cannot  continue  to  be  current  long, 
with  an  enlightened  ministry  now  coming  on  the  stage  of  action. 


URRARY  USF 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 


LD21A-50?n-2,'71 
(P2001slO)476— A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


Commentary  on 


of  Daniel. 


BRARY 


